Sadeghi Goudarzi Sana Origins of The Quran

Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān
B e h n a m S a d e g h i and M o h s e n G o u d a r z i 1
Stanford University / Harvard University
Abstract
The lower text of Ṣan‘ā’ 1 is at present the most important document for the
history of the Qur’ān. As the only known extant copy from a textual tradition
beside the standard ‘Uthmānic one, it has the greatest potential of any known
manuscript to shed light on the early history of the scripture. Comparing it with
parallel textual traditions provides a unique window onto the initial state of the
text from which the different traditions emerged. The comparison settles a peren-
nial controversy about the date at which existing passages were joined together to
form the sūras (chapters). Some ancient reports and modern scholars assign this
event to the reign of the third caliph and link it with his standardizing the text of
the Qur’ān around AD 650. However, the analysis shows that the sūras were
formed earlier. Furthermore, the manuscript sheds light on the manner in which
the text was transmitted. The inception of at least some Qur’ānic textual tradi-
tions must have involved semi-oral transmission, most likely via hearers who
wrote down a text that was recited by the Prophet. This essay argues for these
1
) We are grateful to Christian Robin, the Noja Noseda Foundation, and
CNRS (UMR 8167, Orient et Méditerranée) for giving us their photographs and
ultraviolet images of the DAM 01–27.1 folios. We thank Michael Cook, David Pow-
ers, Patricia Crone, and Ursula Dreibholz for reading the essay and providing
valuable written comments. We thank Ursula Dreibholz for graciously agreeing to
be interviewed by telephone, and Ursula Dreibholz, Lily Feidy, Sharif Kanaana,
Sari Nusseibeh, Ghassan Abdullah, Lawrence Conrad, and Alexander Stille for
patiently answering our questions by e-mail. We also thank the following persons
for their help with various other aspects of the project: Uwe Bergmann, the
anonymous owner of the Stanford 2007 folio, Mette Korsholm of the David Collec-
tion, Michael Cooperson, Devin Stewart, Robert Waltz, Scott Lucas, M.S.M. Saiful-
lah, Sarah Kistler, Bryce Cronkite-Ratcliff, Robert Gregg, Burçak Keskin-Kozat,
the staff at the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies at Stanford University, Ceci
Evangelista of the Office of Development at Stanford University, and the staff at
Stanford University Libraries and the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Labora-
tory.This essay was submitted for publication on August 31, 2011.
Der Islam Bd. 87, S. 1–129 DOI 10.1515/islam-2011-0025

© Walter de Gruyter 2012
ISSN 0021-1818
2 Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi
conclusions by considering the broad features of the text. The essay also presents
the edited text of the folios in the Dār al-Makhṭūṭāt, Ṣan‘ā’,Yemen, in addition to
four folios that were auctioned abroad. A systematic analysis of all the variants is
postponed to future publications.
Introduction
The Manuscript and the Field of Qur’ānic Studies
Scholarly approaches to the early history of the standard text of the

Qur’ān can be enumerated in a broad and rough manner as follows:
There is the traditional account that is associated with most pre-
modern scholars. They held that the Prophet Muḥammad (d. AD 632)
disseminated the Qur’ān gradually. Some of his Companions compiled
copies of the scripture. These codices had differences. Motivated by the
differences and seeking uniformity among Muslims, the Caliph ‘Uthmān
(d. AD 656), himself a Companion, established a standard version. He –
or, more precisely, a committee of Companions appointed by him – did so
by sending master copies of the Qur’ān to different cities – codices that
themselves differed slightly in a small number of spots – and people in
turn made copies of them. In subsequent decades and centuries, this
standard text was read differently by different readers. For example,
they often vowelled and pointed the consonants differently, but many of
these readings – including those of the famous “Seven Readers” – ad-
hered to the undotted consonantal skeletal form of the original master
codices. Here, “skeletal form” requires explanation: one does not know
the spelling of every word in the original codices of ‘Uthmān. For exam-
ple, in most cases it is not known whether the ā sound in the middle of a
word was represented by the letter alif. However, at the very least we
know the text at the “skeletal-morphemic” level.2
2
) The Islamic scholarly tradition does not purport to have preserved the
spelling of every word in the codices sent out by ‘Uthmān. Rather, Muslim tradi-
tion preserves the original ‘Uthmānic codices at least at the skeletal-morphemic
level, that is, with respect to features of the skeletal (unpointed) text that would
necessarily change a word or part of word (morpheme) into something else if
they were different. Some skeletal variations, such as different spellings of a
word, are not skeletal-morphemic because they do not necessarily change a
word. Moreover, differences in the way consonants are pointed may change a
word, but they are not skeletal-morphemic either since they do not change the
skeleton. Normally, a reading is said to differ from the standard ‘Uthmānic rasm
Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān 3
It is convenient to call the adherents of this account “traditionalists.”

The narrative continues to be fairly popular among the specialists in the
Muslim world, in part because most of them have not come to entertain
radical doubt about the broad outlines of early Islamic history. By con-
trast, scholars located in Europe and North America generally do not ac-
cept this account (which is not to say that they reject it). This is due to a
prevailing distrust in the literary sources on which it is founded. These
sources were compiled long after the events they describe, and the extent to
which they preserve truly early reports has been the subject of an evolving
academic debate.This Euro-American majority falls into two main groups.
The first group, a minority, consists of the “revisionists,” that is, those
who consider the traditional narrative as wrong. They reject the idea
that ‘Uthmān attempted to fix the text, or they hold that there contin-
ued to be major changes in the standard text after ‘Uthmān, or, in the
case of Wansbroug h, they think it may be anachronistic to speak of
the Qur’ān at the time of ‘Uthmān in the first place, since the text coa-
lesced long after. Notable revisionists include John Wansbrough,
Patricia Crone, Alfred-Louis de Prémare, and David Powers.3 The
degree of textual stability that according to the traditional account had
been reached by ca. AD 650 was according to John Wansbroug h at-
tained no earlier than the ninth century AD. Most revisionists are more
conservative in their dating, focusing on the reign of the Umayyad caliph
‘Abd al-Malik, that is, AH 65–86/ AD 685–705 as the date of textual final-
ity and/or canonization. Revisionists tend to support their views by
citing documentary evidence, Christian sources, and Muslim traditions.
Their use of the Muslim reports constitutes what they regard as judi-
cious reading between the lines, but what their opponents view as mar-
shaling cherry-picked, decontextualized, and misinterpreted reports.
The second group of scholars, the “skeptics,” is by far larger. Its
members likewise do not accept the traditional account, considering it
unreliable along with nearly every report in the Muslim literary sources
only if it changes both the skeleton and the word, that is, if the change is skeletal
and morphemic. All of this has been well-understood for many centuries and is
simply taken for granted in the way most Muslim Qur’ān specialists have writ-
ten about the different readings (qirā’āt). (We are setting aside a caveat concern-
ing cases in which nonetheless the original ‘Uthmānic spelling or pointing is
knowable.)
3
) For their contributions, see the Bibliography. P. Crone’s approach in her
1994 essay is different from the others we list (or from her 1977 work) in that
she provisionally suggests the late canonization of a largely stable text rather
than a late date for the attainment of textual stability.
bearing on Islamic origins. But they do not subscribe to the theories of

the revisionists either, which they consider to be unsupported by the
evidence. The scholars in this group are agnostics, so to speak. They may
not assert that the standard text came into being or changed signifi-
cantly after ‘Uthmān, but they do not deny that it could have. They may
be adamant that they are not revisionists, but they are de facto revision-
ists in respect of their attitude towards the literary sources. They may be
called “skeptics” inasmuch as they are equally unconvinced by tradi-
tional and revisionist narratives. They tend to not publish much on
Islamic origins, since as skeptics they have few firm beliefs to write
about. This belies the fact that they form the larger group. An indication
of their size is given by what has not been published: in recent decades,
European and North-American academics have written relatively few
accounts of the initial decades of Islamic religion based on the literary
sources. Many academics have simply moved to later periods (focusing
on how the initial decades were remembered), other topics, or languages
other than Arabic.
There is also a minority among scholars in North America and
Europe who support key features of the traditional narrative as re-
counted above. They do not take all the reports in the later sources at
face value, but they believe that critical and detailed analysis of the lit-
erary evidence confirms elements of the traditional account. These
scholars have their counterparts in the Muslim world. Notable members
of this group include Michael Cook, Muḥammad Muḥaysin, and Ha-
rald Motzki, the first one being a defector from the revisionist camp. 4
One may call scholars who support the traditional account based on a
critical evaluation of the literary sources “neo-traditionalists.” They are
traditionalists who argue for the traditional account rather than take it
for granted as a self-evident part of our scholarly heritage.5
We do not believe that this climate of disagreement reflects sheer
underdetermination of theory by evidence. This is not a case of takāfu’
4
) For their works on the Qur’ān, see the Bibliography. For a brief discussion of
Muḥaysin’s work, see Behnam Sadeg hi, “Criteria for Emending the Text of the
Qur’ān,” in Law and Tradition in Classical Islamic Thought, ed. Michael Cook, et al.
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming, 2012). For a summary and discussion of
Cook’s work, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann, “The Codex,” 364, 367–9.
5
) The labels traditionalist, revisionist, skeptic, and neo-traditionalist are
merely convenient names for the four groups. We do not use these terms in their
literal senses or imply other associations. For example, we do not imply that the
traditionalists are attached to tradition or that the skeptics are philosophical
skeptics.
al-adilla: the arguments for the different sides are not equal in strength.
We also do not believe that the relative size of each group of scholars
mirrors the quality of the evidence in its favor, or that the disagreements
will dissolve completely if very strong new evidence were to surface in
favor of a particular position, or that if a consensus were to emerge, that
would necessarily signify a lack of ambiguity in the evidence. Patterns of
human adherence to paradigms depend on sociological, psychological,
and other irrational factors as well as on the quality of the evidence. 6
Nonetheless, it also goes without saying that any evidence that can po-
tentially shed further light on early Islam will be of great interest to
historians and may sway at least some of us.
The Qur’ān under study is one such piece of evidence. Ṣan‘ā’ 1 is a
palimpsest, that is, a manuscript of which the text, “lower writing,” was
erased by scraping or washing and then written over. Recycling parch-
ment in this manner was not uncommon. It was done, for example, for an
estimated 4.5% of manuscripts from the Latin West produced from AD
400 to AD 800,7 though one should not rashly generalize this figure since
the frequency of palimpsesting varied greatly depending on time and
place.8 Beside Ṣan‘ā’ 1, we know of several other Arabic palimpsests.9
6
) The irrational factors have been famously emphasized in Thomas Kuhn,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1970). In the field of Islamic studies, the irrational factors that affect whether
one accepts an author’s work include, for example, the eminence of the author,
the author’s religious background, whether scholars whom one admires agree
with the author, whether one’s mentors and peers agree with the author, whether
the author’s work agrees with the consensus, the author’s rhetorical strategies,
and whether the author’s positions match those of a particular academic, reli-
gious, philosophical, or ideological movement.
7
) Georges Declercq, “Introduction: Codices Rescripti in the Early Me-
dieval West in Early Medieval Palimpsests,” in Early medieval palimpsests, ed.
Georges Declercq (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers, 2007), 12.
8
) Declercq,“Introduction,” 11–13.
9
) There are two Arabic palimpsests in the Monastery of St. Catherine in the
Sinai Peninsula. They are discussed in Aziz S. Atiya, Arabic Manuscripts of
Mount Sinai: A Hand-list of the Arabic Manuscripts and Scrolls Microfilmed at
the Library of the Monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai (Baltimore: John Hop-
kins Press, 1955), 19, 24; and Aziz S. Atiya,“The Monastery of St. Catherine and
the Mount Sinai Expedition,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
96.5 (1952): 578–86. One palimpsest, no. 514, has five layers of text in three lan-
guages: two Arabic, two Syriac, and one Greek. Its top writing, consisting of a
Christian hagiography and the Book of Job, is “in the middle Kufic of the eighth
to early ninth century,” while its second layer, another Christian text, is “in ar-
In Ṣan‘ā’ 1, as with some other palimpsests, over time the residue of

the ink of the erased writing underwent chemical reactions, causing a
color change and hence the reemergence of the lower writing in a pale
brown or pale gray color. Color change is normal for metal-based ink.
Thus, a black ink may turn brown over time, and the traces of ink buried
deep in the parchment can bring an erased text back to life. Transition
metals like iron, copper, and zinc are implicated in corrosion and color
change.10 All three metals are present in the inks of both layers of Ṣan‘ā’ 1,
chaic Kufic of the first century of the Hijra, that is, seventh to eighth century
AD.” (Atiya, Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai, 19). The image of a folio
(Atiya, “Monastery of St. Catherine,” 584) shows that in the top writing the
verses are separated by a number of dots, a feature found in early Qur’āns. The
second Arabic palimpsest, no. 588, has three layers of Christian writing. The top
th
layer is in Arabic and dates from about the 10 century AD. Underneath, there is
a Syriac text. Underneath, “a third layer of Arabic could be traced in some
places” (Atiya, Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai, 24).
There is a palimpsest in the University Library of Cambridge that has a
Qur’ānic lower text in the Ḥijāzī script. It is discussed in the following publica-
tions: Alphonse Mingana and Agnes S. Lewis, Leaves from Three Ancient
Qurâns, Possibly Pre-‘Othmânic (Cambridge: University Press, 1914); Muḥam-
mad Muṣṭafā al-A‘ẓamī, The History of the Qur’ānic Text, 2nd ed. (Riyadh: Azami
Publishing House, 2008), 342–5; Alba Fedeli, “Early Evidences of Variant
Readings in Qur’ānic Manuscripts,” in Die dunklen Anfänge: Neue Forschungen
zur Entstehung und frühen Geschichte des Islam, ed. Karl-Heinz Ohlig et al.
(Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2007), 293–7; Alba Fedeli, “Mingana and the
Manuscript of Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis, One Century Later,” Manuscripta Orien-
talia 11.3 (2005): 3–7. Fedeli and al-A‘ẓamī both find Mingana’s transcription
completely unreliable. Fedeli could verify only thirteen of thirty-seven readings
given by Mingana (Fedeli,“Mingana,” 7). In addition, Mingana’s characteriza-
tion of the text as “possibly pre-‘Othmānic” is unwarranted. (We came to know
of the following useful contribution too late to incorporate its contents about
the Cambridge and other palimpsests: Alba Fedeli,“The Digitization Project
of the Qurānic Palimpsest, MS Cambridge University Library Or. 1287, and the
Verification of the Mingana-Lewis Edition: Where is Salām?,” Journal of Islamic
Manuscripts 2.1 (2011): 100–117.)
There are several other palimpsests in the Dār al-Makhṭūṭāt in Ṣan‘ā’, all rela-
tively late, and all represented by no more than a few pages apiece (Ursula Dreib-
holz, interview, July 30, 3011). The picture of a page from one of them appears as
image 043020C.BMP in a CD published by the UNESCO. Both layers of text are
Qur’ānic and seem later than the palimpsest under study in this essay, though the
lower writing looks like it could be as early as the late first century AH.
10
) Christoph Krekel,“The Chemistry of Historical Iron Gall Inks,” Inter-
national Journal of Forensic Document Examiners 5 (1999): 54–8.
though the lower ink has somewhat more copper and a much greater
quantity of zinc than the upper one.11
Both layers of writing are Qur’āns, and each layer appears to have
once constituted a complete codex.12 The upper text is from the standard
textual tradition and was probably written sometime during the seventh
or the first half of the eighth century AD. With future advances in pale-
ography and the application of other methods, it may become possible to
obtain a more precise date than this. Its verse division pattern displays a
11
) The scientific analysis of the inks on the Stanford 2007 folio was con-
ducted by Uwe Bergmann. The details may be published separately. Cf. Behnam
Sadeg hi and Uwe B ergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet
and the Qur’ān of the Prophet,” Arabica 57.4 (2010): 348, 357.
12
) In addition to the writings corresponding to the putative full codices,
there are occasional interpolations by different hands. For example, an “upper
modifier” filled gaps in the upper writing where the text had faded.There is also a
hand (or possibly more than one hand) on a few folios that we call the “lower
modifier(s),” responsible for jottings that occasionally either modified the lower
writing or filled its gaps where the text had faded or been erased irremediably.
The lower modifier is black and was written with a narrower pen than all the
other scripts. It appears on folios 2, Stanford 2007, David 86/2003, 22 (possibly
different hand), and possibly 23. It dates from a period after the complete erasure
of the lower writing, the addition of the upper writing, and the resurfacing of the
lower writing. Four considerations establish this dating: First, the fact that the
writing is black proves that it does not belong to a reemerged text, since lower
writings in palimpsests come to light as pale brown or pale gray if they reappear
at all. This argument alone is conclusive. Second, Uwe Bergmann’s examination of
the Stanford 2007 folio has established that the lower modifier’s ink has no iron,
copper, or zinc, the transition metals responsible for corrosion and color change
over time (see above, footnotes 10 and 11), confirming that the script has not
resurfaced and thus was never erased to begin with. The ink appears to be based
on carbon and is thus relatively inert, invulnerable to corrosion-related color
change and more easily erased or worn out than metal-based ink. This considera-
tion, too, is conclusive by itself. Third, in terms of calligraphic style, width of the
pen stroke, and the chemical composition of the ink, the upper writing is much
closer to the lower writing than to the lower modifier, which again supports its
predating the lower modifier. Fourth, the lower modifier’s calligraphic style sug-
gests that it does not belong to the first two centuries AH. On folio 22, however,
the calligraphic style looks early: either this is a different hand, or it is the same
“lower modifier” hand as found on the other folios but is influenced here by the
Ḥijāzī script it modified. Cf. Sadeg hi and B ergmann, “The Codex,” 357–8,
especially footnote 12.
marked affinity for the schemes reported for the Ḥijāz, but not precisely
enough to distinguish between Mecca and Medina.13
The lower Qur’ān is of enormous interest because it is so far the only
manuscript that is known to be non-‘Uthmānic, that is, from a textual
tradition other than the standard one. One of us previously did a detailed
study of this codex based on four folios.14 We now extend the analysis to
all the folios except one (of which the image we do not have). In this essay,
we focus on the broad features of the text, postponing to future publica-
tions a systematic textual analysis of all the variants. We shall argue below
that regardless of the date of the lower codex, the textual tradition to
which it belonged and the ‘Uthmānic tradition must have diverged some-
time before the spread of the ‘Uthmānic tradition in the mid-seventh cen-
tury AD. Therefore, comparing these two traditions opens a window onto
the earliest phase of the Qur’ān’s history. We shall also argue, based on just
such a comparison, that, contrary to a common view, the existing pieces of
revelation were joined to form the sūras prior to ‘Uthmān’s famous and
fairly effective attempt to standardize the text.
The date of origin of the textual tradition to which the lower text be-
longs, of course, is a different matter than the date of the lower writing
itself. The lower writing, on paleographic and art-historical grounds, is
almost certainly from the seventh century AD, and probably not from the
latter part of that century. More precision may be obtained by radiocar-
bon dating, which assigns the parchment, and hence the lower codex, to
the period before AD 671 with a probability of 99% (before 661 with the
probability of 95.5%, and before 646 with a probability of 75%).15 This
makes it significantly earlier than the few other Qur’āns that have been
radiocarbon-dated.16 The manuscript was not written long before the
13
) See Appendix 2. This conclusion was reached previously based on an
analysis of a more limited set of thirteen folios in Sadeg hi and B ergmann,
“The Codex,” 377–83.
14
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex.”
15
) Radiocarbon dating was performed on a sample from the “Stanford
2007” folio. For the details, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 352–4.
On the assumption that the codex was not made a long time after the parchment
was prepared, see “The Codex,” 354.
16
) Yasin Dutton, “An Umayyad Fragment of the Qur’an and its Dating,”
Journal of Qur’anic Studies 9.2 (2007): 57–87; Efim Rezvan, “On the Dating of
an ‘ʿUthmānic Qur’ān’ from St. Petersburg,” Manuscripta Orientalia 6.3 (2000):
19–22; Hans-Caspar Graf von Bothmer, “Die Anfänge der Koranschreibung:
Kodikologische und kunsthistorische Beobachtungen an den Koranfragmenten
in Sanaa,” Magazin Forschung (Universität des Saarlandes), 1 (1999): 45.
Prophet Muḥammad’s death in AD 632, since it contains the ninth sūra,

which includes some of the last passages he disseminated.17
The manuscript may be, from a textual-critical standpoint, the most
important one among those discovered in 1972 between the ceiling and
the roof of the Great Mosque of Ṣan‘ā’.18 It seems that the other ones in
the collection, including the many others from the first century in the
Ḥijāzī and Kūfī scripts, may all belong to the standard tradition.19 The
collection includes some 12,000 Qur’ānic parchment fragments.As of 1997,
all but 1500–2000 leaves or fragments were assigned to 926 distinct
Qur’ānic manuscripts, none complete, and many containing only a few
folios.There are about 150 non-Qur’ānic parchment fragments, and a large
number of fragments written on paper. Among the Qur’ān manuscripts,
twenty-two are in the Ḥijāzī script, and therefore are probably from the
17
) On the problems of the relative chronology and composition of the
Qur’ān, see Behnam Sadeg hi, “The Chronology of the Qur’ān: A Stylometric
Research Program,” Arabica 58 (2011): 210–99. See that essay also for references
to the works of Theodor Nöldeke and Mehdi Bazargan. For two different evalua-
tions of Nöldeke’s efforts, see Nicolai Sinai, “The Qur’an as Process,” in The
Qur’ān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qur’ānic
Milieu, ed. Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and Michael Marx (Leiden: Brill,
2010), 407–40; and Emmanuelle Stefanidis, “The Qur’an Made Linear: A
Study of the Geschichte des Qorâns’ Chronological Reordering,” Journal of
Qur’anic Studies 10.2 (2008): 1–22.
18
) This paragraph and the next one on the project to preserve the manu-
scripts are based on the following sources: Bothmer,“Die Anfänge der Koran-
schreibung,” 40–6; Ursula Dreibholz, telephone interview, July 30, 2011, and e-
mails dated July 20, August 3, 4, 8, 10, and 27, 2011; Bothmer, telephone interview,
August 26, 2011; Ursula Dreibholz,“Preserving a Treasure: The Ṣan‘ā’ Manu-
scripts,” Museum International (UNESCO, Paris), No. 203 (Vol. 51, No. 3, 1999):
21–5; Ursula Dreibholz,“Treatment of Early Islamic Manuscript Fragments
on Parchment,” in The Conservation and Preservation of Islamic Manuscripts,
Proceedings of the Third Conference of al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation,
ed. Yusuf Ibish et al. (London: al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation,
1417/1996), 131–45; Claudia Brettar, “UdS: Neues Zentrum für Koranfor-
schung? Teil 1,” Campus 29.3 (July 1999), http://www.uni-saarland.de/verwalt/
presse/campus/1999/3/20-UdS_neues_zentrum.html.
19
) In a response to a query from a historian, of which we were given a copy,
Gerd-Rüdiger Puin wrote that the palimpsest is the only manuscript in the Dār
al-Makhṭūṭāt with significant textual variants. We are unable to verify this be-
cause, like everyone else, we are denied access to the microfilms prepared by
H. Bothmer, and because we have not been able to travel to Ṣan‘ā’. The claim, how-
ever, is consistent with a few images published of other folios in the Ḥijāzī script.
first century AH (7th century and early 8th century AD).20 All but eight of
these twenty-two Ḥijāzī manuscripts are in the “vertical format,” that is,
are longer in height than width. There are also many manuscripts in the
Kūfī script, some of which are probably from the first century AH.
In 1980, a project was initiated to restore and preserve the parch-
ment manuscripts. It was launched under the auspices of the Yemeni
Department for Antiquities. The Cultural Section of the German Foreign
Ministry funded the work, providing 2.2 million German marks (about
1.1 million Euros). Albrecht Noth (University of Hamburg) was the di-
rector of the project. Work on the ground began in 1981 and continued
through the end of 1989, when the project terminated with the end of
funding. Gerd-Rüdiger Puin (University of Saarland) was the local di-
rector beginning with 1981. His involvement came to an end in 1985,
when Hans-Caspar Graf von Bothmer (University of Saarland) took over
as the local director. Bothmer left Ṣan‘ā’ in the following year, but con-
tinued to run the project from Germany, traveling to the site almost
every year. Beginning in 1982, Ursula Dreibholz served as the conserva-
tor for this project, and worked full time in Ṣan‘ā’ until the end of 1989.
She completed the restoration of the manuscripts. She also designed the
permanent storage, collated many parchment fragments to identify dis-
tinct Qur’ānic manuscripts, and directed the Yemeni staff in the same
task. The manuscripts are located in the “House of Manuscripts,” the Dār
al-Makhṭūṭāt (DAM), in Ṣan‘ā’,Yemen. After 1989, Bothmer would visit
the collection periodically. In the winter of 1996–7, he microfilmed all of
the parchment fragments that have been assigned to distinct Qur’ānic
manuscripts. Of the remaining 1500–2000 fragments, he microfilmed a
group of 280. The microfilms are available in Ṣan‘ā’ in the House of
Manuscripts.
Not all of the manuscript under study is in Yemen. The largest por-
tion is there, in the House of Manuscripts, bearing the catalog number
01-27.1. However, before the piles of manuscripts discovered in the
Grand Mosque were secured, some folios must have been pilfered, as they
eventually found their way to auction houses abroad. Between 1992 and
20
) Puin wrote that there are about 90 Ḥijāzī manuscripts (Gerd-Rüdiger
Puin,“Observations on Early Qur’ān Manuscripts in Ṣan‘ā’,” in The Qur’ān as
Text, ed. Stefan Wild (Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 108). This estimate
is wrong by a factor of four. Bothmer cites Puin’s error and corrects it, mention-
ing that the correct number is twenty-two (Bothmer,“Die Anfänge der Koran-
schreibung,” 46, footnote 28).
2008, four folios from the palimpsest were auctioned in London. It is

convenient to refer to them as Christies 2008, Stanford 2007, David
86/2003, and Bonhams 2000.21 Because the label DAM 01-27.1 applies
only to the leaves located in the House of Manuscripts, it is necessary to
have a label for the entire manuscript that covers also the other four
folios and any others that may surface in future. We call the whole manu-
script Ṣan‘ā’ 1.
Scholars have not yet been granted access to the microfilms that
have been in the possession of Puin and Bothmer, nor has any author
traveled to Ṣan‘ā’ and published a study using the microfilms or manu-
scripts there. As a result, the first public discussions of the lower text
were based on the images of the four folios that were auctioned in Lon-
don, and which therefore were readily available. Short entries in the auc-
tion house catalogs briefly addressed paleographic and art historical
aspects.22 Subsequently, Sergio Noja Noseda (who made an independ-
ent set of photos of the DAM 01-27.1 manuscript), Yasin Dutton, and
Alba Fedeli announced the non-‘Uthmānic status of the folios they
examined.23 Alba Fedeli published the first article discussing the
lower text. She focused on two folios (Bonhams 2000 and David 86/2003),
noted some important variants, and pointed out three variants that are
also reported as having been in certain Companion codices. She also has
21
) On the history of these folios, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Co-
dex,” 354–5. Even though the upper writing in the Stanford 2007 and David
86/2003 folios is in a different script, it is almost certain that these four folios
and the DAM 01–27.1 folios are from the same manuscript. The Stanford 2007
and David 86/2003 folios share a number of features with the other folios: the
size of the folios is the same, the same intricate and colored ten-verse markers
appear in the upper codex, and the lower modifier is found in Stanford 2007 and
David 86/2003 as well. The same script seems to be used in the lower codex, but
this provisional impression requires careful verification. It is apparent that
scribes took turns to write the upper codex, a common practice, about which see
Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 357, and the references listed there.
22
) See the references in Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 354 (foot-
notes 7 and 8), 360 (footnote 22).
23
) Sergio Noseda,“La Mia Visita a Sanaa e il Corano Palinsesto,” Istituto
Lombardo (Rendiconti Lett.) 137 (2003): 43–60; Anonymous, “‘The Qur’an:
Text, interpretation and translation’ 3rd Biannual SOAS Conference, October
16–17, 2003,” Journal of Qurʾānic Studies 6.1 (2003): 143–5 (mentioning Dut-
ton’s paper, “Three Possibly pre-ʿUthmānic Folios of the Qurʾān”); Fedeli,
“Early Evidences.”
an article in Italian that mentions the 01-27.1 folios.24 An extended

study by Behnam Sadeghi focused on history, the role of orality, and
textual criticism.25
In 2007, S. Noja Noseda and Christian Robin took an independent
set of pictures of DAM 01-27.1. It is conceivable that this stirred the
Puins, who had not published anything on the palimpsest since G.
Puin had become acquainted with it about twenty-six years earlier.
Beginning in 2008, nineteen years after all the parchment manuscripts
in Ṣan‘ā’ had been restored, in three successive articles published at the
rate of one per year, Elisabeth Puin (the wife of Gerd-Rüdiger Puin)
transcribed the lower text of three and a half folios (folios 2, 5, 6A, and
20).26 Her first essay (2008) mentioned the pictures taken“recently” by S.
Noja Noseda and added that they might be published soon.27 The tran-
scriptions are positive contributions, though the articles are not free
from errors.28 In the third article (2010), she states views (not found in
24
) Fedeli,“Early Evidences.” For the contribution in Italian, see the Bib-
liography.
25
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex.”
26
) Elisabeth Puin is an external lecturer in the Department of Evangelical
Theology in Saarland University in Saarbrücken. Her publications are as fol-
lows: Elisabeth Puin,“Ein früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1),”
in Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, ed. Markus Groß et
al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008), 461–93; Elisabeth Puin, “Ein früher Koranpa-
limpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1) – Teil II,” in Vom Koran zum Islam, ed. Mar-
kus Groß et al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2009), 523–81; Elisabeth Puin,“Ein früher
Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1) – Teil III: Ein nicht-‘uṯmānischer
Koran,” in Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion I: Von der koranischen Bewegung
zum Frühislam, ed. Markus Groß et al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2010), 233–305.
These articles are not cited in Sadeg hi and B ergmann’s “Codex,” which was
completed in 2008 and modified and submitted for publication in 2009 before
the authors became aware of Elisabeth Puin’s 2008 essay.
27
) E. Puin,“Koranpalimpsest [Teil I],” 462, footnote 2.
28
) Among the errors in E. Puin’s work, three are particularly significant.
(1) The first one concerns the hand called “the lower modifier.” Preoccupied with
the theme of textual suppression, E. Puin misses the signs that the lower modi-
fier came after the upper text had been written and the lower writing had resur-
faced (see above, footnote 12). She asserts that the lower modifier’s jottings were
introduced before the lower text was fully erased and the upper text was written
(E. Puin,“Koranpalimpsest [Teil I],” 474;“Teil II,” 524;“Teil III,” 234–6, 253). The
lower modifier occupies a prominent place in her discussion, signifying a “pro-
gressive canonization” of the text (“Teil III,” 235–6). (2) The second significant
error concerns what she takes to be the standard text of the Qur’ān. When a
her first two essays and presented without justification) that mirror the
conclusions of Sadeghi and B ergmann’s “Codex” essay. She thereby
moves away from the prevailing revisionist outlook of the authors in the
Inârah series in which her previous two articles appeared.29
word in a manuscript is spelled differently than it is in her Saudi Qur’ān, she

calls that a “deviation from the standard text.” Needless to say, many spelling
variations in manuscripts do not match her Saudi Qur’ān, and so her essays are
filled with statements like these:“even in the … upper writing there are numer-
ous deviations from the standard text with respect to spelling” (“Koranpalimp-
sest [Teil I],” 462), and “the spelling variant of the defective alif occurs
frequently in Hijāzī manuscripts” (“Teil II,” 539). All of this points to a misun-
derstanding: she thinks that Muslim tradition has a “standard text” that pur-
ports to give the spelling of words in the original codices sent out by ‘Uthmān.
She makes this explicit by referring to “the Standard text … which according to
Muslim tradition reproduces the Qur’ān in wording and spelling exactly as it
had been specified by the redaction of the caliph ‘Uthmān”(“Teil II,” 524). On
why this is wrong, see above, footnote 2. (3) The third notable error is her view
that David 86/2003 and Stanford 2007 are possibly not from the same manu-
script as the other folios ( “Teil III,” 248; 251, footnote 30; 258, footnote 38). On
this matter, see footnote 21, above.
29
) In her third article, “Teil III,” Elisabeth Puin does not cite Sadeg hi
and B ergmann’s “Codex” and does not include it in her bibliography. However,
she may have read it, at least in draft form, as she seems aware of its contents.
She mentions Stanford five times and correctly identifies the folio studied at
Stanford as the one formerly auctioned at Sotheby’s in1993. The study of that
folio at Stanford University was first mentioned in Sadeg hi and B erg-
mann’s “Codex.” Indeed, she calls it the Stanford folio, a name that was given to
it in “The Codex.” E. Puin mistakenly thinks that the folio is located perma-
nently at Stanford University (“Teil III,” 248), which may have led her to think
of its presence at Stanford as public knowledge, known independently of “The
Codex” essay. In fact, the folio was brought to Stanford only briefly for X-Ray
Fluorescence imaging. In any case, Sadeghi promptly sent G. Puin a copy of “The
Codex.”
We welcome the new elements in Elisabeth Puin’s third essay (“Teil III”)
that parallel Sadeg hi and B ergmann’s “Codex”: (1) In her first two essays,
E. Puin did not use the label “non-‘Uthmānic,” nor discuss Companion codices,
the existence of which is questioned by skeptical and revisionist scholars. In
“The Codex,” Sadeg hi explained why the lower writing corroborates the real-
ity of the Companion codices, and called the lower writing “non-‘Uthmānic,”
preferring it to the oft-used “pre-‘Uthmānic.” In her third essay, E. Puin says
that the lower writing confirms the reality of the Companion codices, and like-
wise calls it “non-‘Uthmānic” (“Teil III,” 233–7). (2) Sadeg hi wrote that the
lower writing represents a codex other than those of Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ubayy b.
Elisabeth Puin worked with inferior,“small and 6 × 6 photographs in

black and white, taken by Dr. Gerd-R. Puin and Dr. Hans-Caspar Graf
von Bothmer.”30 This may explain why her transcriptions have, by our
count, forty-one errors. (Based on better photographs and ultraviolet
images, our edition includes new transcriptions of the three and a half
folios discussed by E. Puin.) It is surprising that in the seventeen years
during which G. Puin had the opportunity to take (or have his col-
leagues take) adequate pictures of the palimpsest for his own use, he did
not do so.31 Although media interviews with G. Puin over a decade ago
Ka‘b. E. Puin says the same thing in her third article (“Teil III,” 235), but not in
her earlier essays. (3) Sadeg hi argued at length that “orality played a role”
(“The Codex,” 344) in generating the differences between the lower writing and
the ‘Uthmānic Qur’ān. In her third essay, E. Puin says, without providing any
justification, that “oral tradition indeed played a role” (“Teil III,” 237). She had
not mentioned orality in the first two essays. (4) Sadeg hi provided a detailed
classification of variants (“The Codex,” 417–36). E. Puin does so in her third
essay,“Teil III,” 262–76, but not in the first two. (5) E. Puin mentions that the
upper and lower writing “seem to have been written … perhaps in the same kind
of ink” (“Teil III”, 241) without explaining how she could determine the kind of
ink. It is chemical analysis, as described in “The Codex,” 367–8, that reveals the
inks as alike in being metal-based, and as different from the non-metallic inks of
the lower modifier and upper modifier hands. (6) Sadeg hi compared the sūra
sequences in the folios with those reported for the codices of Ibn Mas‘ūd and
Ubayy b. Ka‘b. E. Puin does this in her third essay (“Teil III,” 257) but not in
the earlier ones.
30
) Elisabeth Puin,“Koranpalimpsest [Teil I],” 461–2, footnote 2.
31
) In a written response to a query sent to him by a historian, of which we
were given a copy, G. Puin attributed the poor quality of the microfilm pictures
to obstacles erected by the Yemeni authorities, who, he stated, were not inter-
ested in the success of the documentation project. The problems caused by the
Yemenis are a common motif in media interviews given by G. Puin for stories
that suggest that the Yemenis sought to suppress evidence (see Andrew
Higg ins, “The Lost Archive,” The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2008; Toby
Lester,“What is the Koran?,” The Atlantic Monthly (January 1999), 44; see also
the next footnote). It should be noted, however, that scholars who had much
more limited access to the manuscripts than G. Puin was granted, and much less
time, took much better photographs of the palimpsest. An ordinary camera
should suffice for taking adequate pictures. A more plausible explanation than
Yemeni obstructionism is that G. Puin did not seriously plan to study the lower
writing of the palimpsest in the 1980s and the 1990s and therefore did not try to
take, or have his colleagues take, adequate photographs. When eventually his
wife decided to transcribe the text in the late 00s, shortly after Noseda had
photographed the palimpsest, she had to rely on the pictures prepared by
described him as “thrilled” about studying the Ṣan‘ā’ texts and errone-
ously blamed the lack of published studies on the Yemeni authorities, it
seems that serious study of the lower writing of the palimpsest was not
on his agenda at that time.32
Textual-Critical and Historical Implications
Before the advent of the printing press, book manuscripts formed

lineages. Like animals and plants, they were subject to heredity and
mutation. Typically, a book manuscript was a copy of an earlier one,
which was in turn a copy of an even earlier one, and so forth. As a book
was copied, textual variants could arise that would be passed to its off-
spring.
The analogy with nature extends to questions of method. Biologists
usually learn about the past in two ways. One way is to find a specimen
that can be dated on external grounds, for example, by using radiocarbon
dating or other paleontological methods to establish the date of a fossil
(and, in rare cases, recoverable DNA within it). The equivalent in our field
is to find an old dated or datable manuscript or inscription. In the last
several decades, some scholars in the field of Islamic studies have come
to consider only such documentary sources as valid evidence for early
G. Puin and H. Bothmer in the previous decades. These may be fine for many of
the other manuscripts and for the upper writing of the palimpsest, but they are
inadequate for the lower writing.
32
) Relying on interviews with G. Puin, Toby Lester wrote:“detailed exami-
nation … is something the Yemeni authorities have seemed reluctant to allow.”
Lester added that Puin and Bothmer “have been reluctant to publish partly
because … they felt that the Yemeni authorities, if they realized the possible
implications of the discovery, might refuse them further access.” Lester adds that
the microfilming of the manuscripts was completed in 1997. “This means that
soon Von Bothmer, Puin, and other scholars will finally have a chance to scruti-
nize the texts and to publish their findings freely, a prospect that thrills Puin.”
Lester thus implies that, as of 1999, G. Puin had not had the opportunity to
“scrutinize the texts.” In fact, Puin had this opportunity since 1981 when he
began working with the manuscripts, or since 1989 when the restoration of the
parchment fragments was complete, or since early 1997 after the microfilms
were made. See Lester,“What is the Koran?,” 44. For G. Puin’s publications, see
below, footnotes 33 and 78. For the theme of Yemeni obstructionism, see the
previous footnote and the section below entitled, “The Media and Manus-
cripts.”
Islam. Accordingly, their impression that there are not many early copies
of the Qur’ān or other documentary evidence is one of the contributing
factors to the common pessimism in early Islamic studies about our abil-
ity to learn much about the first century or two of Islam. Setting aside
the revisionists’ and skeptics’ undervaluation of the potential of the late
literary sources, it is noteworthy that they do not always recognize that
the earliest manuscripts can be used to work one’s way back in time. Our
knowledge can extend to the period before the manuscripts.
This brings us to another method biologists use to learn about the
past. They begin with known organisms, modern ones and fossils, and
group similar ones together, forming hierarchies of clusters and sub-
clusters that correspond to trees of descent. By comparing sub-branches,
they are able to learn about the branches from which they must have
diverged. In this manner, they recursively work their ways back to earlier
stages, identifying ancient species and their characteristics or the ar-
chaic attributes of extant species. With a number of important caveats, a
similar method works in the study of manuscripts and is commonly used
in textual criticism. One may use textual variants to group manuscripts
into clusters corresponding to the branches of a family tree. One can also
compare the offspring to learn about the progenitors. In the case of
Ṣan‘ā’ 1, this method is a more fruitful method of discovery than radio-
carbon dating, impressive as the results of radiocarbon dating may be.
As with other widely transmitted books, codices of the Qur’ān fall
into clusters, called text types, when compared for textual similarity.33
33
) Not everybody who has written on the Ṣan‘ā’manuscripts thinks in
terms of text types. For an approach that disregards the notion, see Gerd-
Rüdiger Puin, “Observations on Early Qur’ān Manuscripts in Ṣan‘ā’,” in The
Qur’ān as Text, ed. Stefan Wild (Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 107–11.
In this article, G. Puin reaches a striking conclusion based on the discovery of
two variants. He writes,“In 19:62 [the] original ‫ ﻻ ﺗﺴﻤﻊ‬lā tasma‘ was later cor-
rected to lā tasma‘ūna (instead of the usual lā yasma‘ūna). Instead of qul jā’a l-
ḥaqqu in 34:49 we find ‫ ﻗﻴﻞ ﺟﺎ اﻟﺤﻖ‬qīla jā’a l-ḥaqqu.The systems of the seven, ten or
14 Qirā’āt are, consequently, younger than the variants observed in San‘ā’.” Puin
does not say whether these readings appear in just one manuscript apiece. If
they do, as seems likely, the only way in which his theory that these readings give
the original text could be sustained is for all the other manuscripts to represent
a later state of the text, an improbable scenario, and an impossible one if these
other manuscripts have variants of their own, which would make them the origi-
nal texts by Puin’s method. To avoid such contradictions, scholars normally take
a singular reading to be a relatively late development or a scribal error, unless it
occurs in a branch of the textual tradition that is different from all the others,
By far the best-known cluster is the standard one, called the ‘Uthmānic
text type. We give it this name as a label of convenience because early
Muslims believed that its ancestors were the manuscripts that the caliph
‘Uthmān (d. AD 656) had sent to the main cities of the state sometime
around AD 650 as part of his attempt to establish a standard text. We
accept this early dating for the spread of the text type, and in this essay
we take it as a given. We do not provide an argument for it here, since one
of us has already done so in a previous essay on the basis of the work
done by Michael Cook, Yasin Dutton, Hossein Modarressi, and
other scholars.34 Regardless of the date one assigns to its origin, it can-
not be denied that the ‘Uthmānic text type represents a distinct branch
of the textual tradition. That is so because it forms a genuine cluster:
the differences between the texts within the text type are small com-
pared to the texts outside it. The lower writing of Ṣan‘ā’ 1 clearly falls
outside the standard text type. It belongs to a different text type, which
we call C-1.
The relatively small number and scope of the variations within
the standard (‘Uthmānic) text type entails a critical conclusion with
also unlikely in this case. (For the treatment of singular readings in New Testa-
ment scholarship, see the references cited in Sadeg hi and B ergmann, “The
Codex,” 387–8, footnote 84. In some circumstances, pre-modern ḥadīth specialists
also viewed singular features in ḥadīth variants in a similar light.) Textual critics
usually begin by grouping texts into text types before evaluating what is early
and what is late. By contrast, Puin begins with the assumption that the stan-
dard reading is a corruption in every case in which there is some other reading in
any manuscript. He holds to this premise so firmly that even what is on the face
of it a scribal error is for him the original text: the second variant mentioned
above is a scribal error on the face of it since it does not fit the context. (On
scribal errors, see, e.g., Alba Fedeli,“A.Perg.2: A Non Palimpsest and the Cor-
rections in Qur’ānic Manuscripts,” Manuscripta Orientalia 11.1 (2005): 20–7;
Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 372, footnote 53.) Furthermore, Puin
does not even allow for the possibility that a standard reading and a variant
reading could have at some point existed simultaneously: the standard one is for
him automatically a later corruption, hence his conclusion that the readings in
the qirā’āt literature are “younger [i.e., later] than the variants” he has men-
tioned.
34
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 364–70. Another indication, be-
side those given in the preceding reference, for the early date of the spread of the
‘Uthmānic textual tradition is the significant number of first-century ‘Uth-
mānic manuscripts.
important ramifications: the splitting off of the ‘Uthmānic and other

textual traditions occurred no later than the spread of the ‘Uthmānic
text type. The innumerable ‘Uthmānic manuscripts and the different
‘Uthmānic readings preserved in the literary sources provide a very
clear picture of the degree and types of change that could arise during
the period in which the ‘Uthmānic tradition flourished. These changes
are small enough in scope and few enough in number to be compatible
with written transmission or with dictation in which the result is
checked against the original. The standard tradition thus appears to
have achieved a high level of transmission fidelity already around the
mid-seventh century AD. This ‘Uthmānic cluster and the textual tradi-
tions that fall significantly outside it, such as the C-1 tradition to which
the lower writing belongs, must have parted ways prior to the prolifera-
tion of the ‘Uthmānic tradition. This conclusion depends on the premise
that once people began transmitting the scripture with a high level of
accuracy, as in written transmission, a drastic reversion did not occur to
a previous, less precise form of transmission, one that could have gener-
ated the differences of the sort seen between C-1 and the ‘Uthmānic text
type. This premise, although not certain, is highly probable. It is, for ex-
ample, natural to assume that once written transmission began, it con-
tinued. Incidentally, one can see a similar trend in New Testament manu-
scripts and ḥadīth variants.35
The conclusion that C-1’s origin must have predated ca. AD 650 is
largely independent of the date of Ṣan‘ā’ 1. For example, it would not be
invalidated if it were found that the lower Ṣan‘ā’ 1 codex was produced,
say, in the eighth century AD. This codex would still be only a represen-
tative of a C-1 text type, and the late date of the manuscript would still
beg the question of when this textual tradition originated. The codex
would have shared a common ancestor with its contemporaneous
‘Uthmānic cousins, a progenitor which would have dated from before
the spread of the ‘Uthmānic tradition. Moreover, since the differences
between the C-1 text type and the ‘Uthmānic text type outstrip in
magnitude and number the range of differences expected to arise in the
period after ca. AD 650, most of these differences must have originated
before then.
Until recently, no Qur’ān manuscript was known outside the ‘Uthmānic
tradition. Non-‘Uthmānic Qur’āns were known only through descriptions
35
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 396, footnote 103.
of them in the literary sources. According to these accounts, some

Companions of the Prophet had compiled complete Qur’ān codices of
their own. Three Companions are frequently named: ‘Abdallāh b. Mas‘ūd,
Ubayy b. Ka‘b, and Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī.The variants of the codices of the
first two are reported, while almost nothing seems to be remembered
about the third. However, because the sources quoting these variants were
written a long time after the Prophet Muḥammad, scholars such as John
Wansbroug h and John Burton took the position that the Compan-
ion codices never actually existed – they were concepts that allowed Mus-
lims to assign their interpretations to fictive versions of the scripture.36
These scholars saw the reported textual differences not as genuine vari-
ants of the sort that normally arise in the course of transmission, but as
instances of exegesis (or desired doctrines, for Burton) transformed into
scriptural text. This view is implausible for a number of reasons. A small
fraction of the variants do make a difference in meaning. But most vari-
ants do not affect the meaning significantly enough to warrant such a
theory, and many variants do not change the meaning at all. Furthermore,
most textual differences are candidates for being the products of assimila-
tion of parallels, harmonization to context, or simple omission – phenom-
ena that characterize genuine transmission.37 The one reason that is most
relevant for our purposes, however, is that Ṣan‘ā’ 1 constitutes direct
documentary evidence for the reality of the non-‘Uthmānic text types
that are usually referred to as “Companion codices.”
Table 1 gives a few examples, in English translation, in which C-1 dif-
fers from the standard text.38 The C-1 type shares a number of variants
36
) John Burton, The Collection of the Qur’ān (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1977), 228; John Wansbroug h, Qur’ānic Studies (Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 44–5, 203–5. Wansbrough’s book was originally
published in 1977.
37
) For the assimilation of parallels and harmonization to context in the
Jewish Bible, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev.
ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 261–3. For the literature on the assimila-
tion of parallels and nearby terms in New Testament manuscripts, see the refer-
ences given in Sadeg hi and B ergmann, “The Codex,” 388, footnotes 85 and
87. For assimilation of parallels and nearby terms generating differences be-
tween Companion codices, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann, “The Codex,” 388,
391–2, 401–3. For a likely example of assimilation of parallels in the ḥadīth lit-
erature, see Behnam Sadeg hi, “The Traveling Tradition Test: A Method for
Dating Traditions,” Der Islam 85.1 (2008): 222.
38
) For a few other variants translated into English, see Sadeg hi and
B ergmann,“The Codex,” 355.
with those reported for the codices of ‘Abdallāh b. Mas‘ūd and Ubayy b.
Ka‘b, and these are listed in Appendix 1. These constitute a minority
among its variants, as C-1 does not share the vast majority of its vari-
ants with these codices. Nor are most of their variants found in C-1.Thus,
C-1 represents a text type of its own, a distinct“Companion codex.”39
C-1 confirms the reliability of much of what has been reported about
the other Companion codices not only because it shares some variants
with them, but also because its variants are of the same kinds as those
reported for those codices.40 There are additions, omissions, transposi-
tions, and substitutions of entire words and sub-word elements (mor-
phemes). A large number of these variants involve “minor” elements of
language such as suffixes, prefixes, prepositions, and pronouns. Many
variants involve changes of person, tense, mood, or voice (passive or ac-
tive), or the use of different words having the same root.41 Furthermore,
the variants in C-1 and other Companion codices richly display the phe-
nomena of assimilation of parallels – whereby a scribe's writing of a
verse is affected by his or her memory of a similar verse elsewhere in the
Qur’ān – and assimilation of nearby terms, whereby a scribe’s writing is
influenced by nearby expressions. The fact that all these features are
found both in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd, as described by al-A‘mash, and in
C-1 establishes that the literary sources preserve information about
codices that actually existed. The question remains whether these real
codices originated at the time of the Companions, which is what early
Muslims recalled. A positive answer to this question is supported by tex-
tual criticism, as described above, which assigns the beginning of the C-1
text type to the period before the spread of the standard text type, that
is, before ca. AD 650. In sum, the “Companion” codices indeed existed at
the time of the Companions, as the literary sources maintain.
39
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 344, 360, 390–4.
40
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 345, 390–4. There is, however, a
conspicuous difference between C-1 and the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd: C-1 has a lot
more variants – by a rough estimate perhaps twenty-five times as many.
41
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 390–4, 389 (Table 6), 393 (Ta-
ble 7).
Table 1. Examples of Major Variants
Variant description The text of the standard The text of the C-1
tradition tradition
In Q 2.196, C-1 does not Do not shave your Do not shave until the
have the word heads until the offering offering reaches its
ru’ūsakum. reaches its destination. destination.
In Q 2.196, C-1 has If any of you be sick Should one of you be
fa-in kāna aḥadun sick
instead of the standard
fa-man kāna.
In Q 2.196, C-1 has aw fasting, or alms, or an fasting or an offering
nusukin instead of the offering
standard aw ṣadaqatin
aw nusukin.
In Q 2.201, C-1 has There are people who There are people who
wa-l-ākhirati instead of say, “Our Lord, give us say, “Our Lord, give us
the standard ḥasanatan in this world,” and they in this world,” and they
wa-fī l-ākhirati have no portion in the have no portion in the
ḥasanatan. world to come. Then, world to come. Then,
there are those who say, there are those who say,
“Our Lord, give us good “Our Lord, give us in
in this world and good this world and the
in the next.” next.”
In Q 63.7, C-1 has min They are the ones who They are the ones who
ḥawlihi after yanfaḍḍū. say, “Do not spend say, “Do not spend
(alms) on those who are (alms) on those who are
with the Messenger of with the Messenger of
God in order that they God in order that they
may disperse.” may disperse from
around him.”
C-1, when combined with the other textual traditions, can shed light
on the state of the text from which they all descended, that is, the proto-
type disseminated by the Prophet Muḥammad. The literary sources pro-
vide fairly systematic information about the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd, allow-
ing one to compare it with C-1 and the ‘Uthmānic text types. It emerges
that where the texts of Ibn Mas‘ūd, C-1, and ‘Uthmān disagree, usually
the ‘Uthmānic version is in the majority: that is, the ‘Uthmānic text
agrees with one of the others against the third. This is compatible with
two scenarios. First, the ‘Uthmānic text may be a hybrid formed on the
basis of a number of Companion codices (and, conceivably, partial codi-
ces and free-standing copies of sūras) in which preference was usually

given to the majority reading. This hybridity thesis happens to fit some
early Muslim reports about the formation of the text. Second, the ‘Uth-
mānic Qur’ān could have been a self-contained, existing codex like those
of Ibn Mas‘ūd and C-1, the three text types being distinct descendants of
a common source, the Prophetic prototype. In this scenario, the fact that
the ‘Uthmānic text is usually in the majority suggests that it is overall a
better reproduction of the common source.42 These broad, initial conclu-
sions may be refined or even significantly modified once we have fin-
ished the detailed study of all the variants and performed a statistical
comparison of C-1 and the ‘Uthmānic text.43 As another refinement,
it may become necessary to come to terms with the fact that different
sūras in a codex could have had different transmission histories before
they came to be incorporated in a Companion codex. As explained in a
previous essay, this likelihood arises since a Companion’s codex may have
taken different sūras from different scribes.44 This possibility now seems
particularly relevant, since, as compared to the other sūras in C-1 found
in the fragment, sūra 20 in C-1 shows a greater affinity to the codex of
Ubayy b. Ka‘b.45 Finally, one should investigate the extent to which the
variants may be due to the Prophet reciting different versions.46
Analysis resolves a fundamental question about the early history of
the Qur’ān: who joined the existing verses to form the sūras (chapters)
and when? Many scholars and some early reports hold that this was
accomplished after the death of the Prophet by the committee that
42
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 343–436. We owe the hybridity
hypothesis to Michael Cook.
43
) The work is in progress, and it involves comparing C-1’s text with the
‘Uthmānic Qur’ān. The key question relating to the problem of textual priority
is whether one text type has significantly more “irreducible pluses” than the
other. A“plus” of a text type is a word or a phrase found in it that is missing from
the other text type (without some other word or phrase taking its place). It is
“irreducible” if it cannot be explained as an addition resulting from assimilation
of parallels or nearby terms. Having more irreducible pluses is a sign of textual
priority. Such an analysis was conducted previously on the variants in the four
folios of Ṣan‘ā’1 auctioned abroad (Sadeg hi and B ergmann, “The Codex,”
385–90, 399–405), but, obviously, the results might be different once all the folios
have been analyzed.
44
45
) See Appendix 1.
46
‘Uthmān charged with the task of standardizing the Qur’ān. Some other
early reports however indicate that this was done already by the Prophet
himself. This last view is now found to be better supported. It follows
from the fact that the ‘Uthmānic Qur’ān, C-1, and the Companion codi-
ces generally have the same passages within the sūras, that the sūras
were fixed before these various textual traditions branched off, in par-
ticular before the spread of the ‘Uthmānic version. With only a few ex-
ceptions, the differences among the codices are at the level of mor-
phemes, words, and phrases – not at the level of sentences or verses. The
exceptions in C-1 include the very short consecutive verses 31 and 32 in
sūra 20, which are three words long apiece, and which appear in C-1 in
reverse order. Literary sources record that these verses were also trans-
posed in the Codex of Ubayy b. Ka‘b.47 Another exception concerns verse
85 of sūra 9, which is missing. At sixteen words, this omission is found to
be an outlier when compared to the sizes of other missing elements in
C-1, which are much shorter. The anomaly may be explained by the com-
mon phenomenon of parablepsis, a form of scribal error in which the eye
skips from one text to a similar text, in this case, from the instance of
ūna followed by a verse separator and the morpheme wa at the end of
verse 84 to the instance of ūna followed by a verse separator and the
morpheme wa at the end of verse 85. The conclusion that the sūras were
constituted prior to the ‘Uthmānic text helps one assess the accuracy of
some early Muslim accounts. It disproves the reports that imply that it
was under ‘Uthmān that the sūras were assembled from the preserved
pieces of the revelation.48
There are some traditions about ‘Uthmān’s team finding the last two
verses of sūra 9 with a man named Khuzayma, or Abū Khuzayma, or Ibn
Khuzayma.49 C-1 has these verses in the expected place. Since they are
also found in the ‘Uthmānic Qur’ān, and since it is not reported that any
Companion codex was without them, these verses must have belonged to
the prototype from which the C-1 and ‘Uthmānic text types emerged.
Therefore, one should not read too much into the report.
47
) ‘Abd al-Laṭīf al-Khaṭīb, Mu‘jam al-qirā’āt (Damascus: Dār Sa‘d al-Dīn),
5:430.
48
) For a summary of traditions suggesting that the sūras were fixed only
after the Prophet’s death, see Hossein Modarressi, “Early Debates on the
Integrity of the Qur’ān: A Brief Survey,” Studia Islamica 77 (1993): 8–13. Modar-
ressi questions their accuracy and calls them“extremely problematic” (p. 14).
49
) Maḥmūd Rāmyār, Tārīkh-i Qur’ān, 2nd ed. (Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, HS
1362/1983), 313–6.
The order in which the sūras were put together is a different matter.
Different Companion codices had different sūra sequences, indicating
that the order was not completely fixed at the time of the Prophet.50
This is supported by C-1, which adopts a non-standard sūra order. In a
previous article, one of us mentioned three sūra transitions found in the
lower writing, and subsequently another author mentioned two more.51
In Table 2 we present a complete table of the eleven sūra transitions in
the extant folios of Ṣan‘ā’ 1. (For convenience, in the table and elsewhere
in this article, the sūra numbers give the ‘Uthmānic rank.) Al-A ‘ẓamī
has made the astute point that a non-standard sūra transition does not
entail a non-standard Qur’ān if it occurs in a pamphlet with a selection
of sūras.52 However, the point does not apply to the lower writing: it cov-
ers too much of the Qur’an, including some of the largest sūras; its word-
ing establishes its non-‘Uthmānic status; and its sūra ordering is too
similar to those reported for other Companion codices.
One may make three observations about C-1’s sūra ordering. First,
some transitions are found only in Ubayy b. Ka‘b’s codex, others only in
Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex, and yet others in no reported sūra ordering. Second,
the ordering is closer to those of Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ubayy b. Ka‘b than to
that of ‘Uthmān. This pattern is so strong that one would expect it to
hold in the lost remainder of the codex as well. Third, the ordering is
closer to the one reported for Ubayy b. Ka‘b than to that of Ibn Mas‘ūd;
but the pattern is not strong enough and the sample size is not large
enough to provide an inkling of whether that was also the case in the
rest of the codex.
50
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 409–10.
51
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 393 (Table 8); E. Puin,“Teil II,”
256–7.
52
) Al-A‘ ẓamī, History, 77–81.
Table 2. The sūra orders in C-1, Ibn Mas‘ūd, and Ubayy b. Ka‘b. The numbers are
the ‘Uthmānic ranks. The sequences in the Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadīm and
the Itqān of al-Suyūtī differ due to errors in the transmission of the re-
ports about sūra orders.
C-1 Ibn Mas‘ūd Ubayy b. Ka‘b

53
11, 8, 9, 19 Fihrist: 9, 16, 11, nine Fihrist: 55 8, 9, 11, 19
intervening sūras, 8, 19
Itqān: 54 9, 16, 11, fourteen Itqān: 56 8, 9, 11, 19
intervening sūras, 8, 19
12, 18 Fihrist: sūra 18 is omitted; Fihrist: 12, 18
12 is followed by 17
Itqān: 12, 18, 17 Itqān: 12, 18
15, 25 Fihrist: sūra 15 is omitted Fihrist: 15, ten intervening sūras, 25
Itqān: 25, 15 Itqān: sūra 25 is omitted
20, 21 Fihrist: sūra 20 is omitted Fihrist: 20, 21
Itqān: 21, 20 Itqān: 20, 21
34, 13 Fihrist: 13, 34 Fihrist: 13, four intervening sūras, 34
Itqān: 13, 34 Itqān: 34, two intervening sūras, 13
39, 40 Fihrist: 39, 40 Fihrist: 39, five intervening sūras, 40
Itqān: 39, 40 Itqān: 39, six intervening sūras, 40
63, 62, 89, 90 Fihrist: 63, 62, twenty-nine Fihrist: 63, 62, 65, 89 (sūra 90 is omit-
intervening sūras, 89, 85, 84, ted, unless lā uqsimu refers to it
96, 90 rather than to sūra 75, in which case
it comes at eleven removes after
sūra 89.)
Itqān: 63, 62, twenty-seven Itqān: 63, 62, 66, 89, 90
intervening sūras, 89, 85, 84,
96, 90
One report ascribes to ‘Uthmān’s team the decision to place sūra 9 af-
ter sūra 8, and to do so without inserting between them the basmala,“In
53
) Ibn al-Nadīm, Kitāb al-Fihrist, ed. Riḍā Tajaddud (n.d. and n.p.), 29.
54
) Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1416/1996),
1:176.
55
) Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist, 29–30.
56
) Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, 1:175–6.
the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,” a formula found at

the beginning of all the other sūras.57 The evidence of Ṣan‘ā’ 1 adds a
nuance to this claim. The transition point between sūras 8 and 9 happens
to be part of the surviving fragments of the lower codex, and it lacks the
basmala like the ‘Uthmānic text. In putting sūra 9 right after sūra 8, the
manuscript agrees with the codices of ‘Uthmān and Ubayy b. Ka‘b, but
not that of Ibn Mas‘ūd, which places sūra 8 at many removes after sūra 9.
It is unlikely, then, that the decision of ‘Uthmān’s team was an innova-
tion.
As mentioned above, most of the differences between C-1 and the
other text types must have arisen at the branching off of the textual
traditions. This happened probably as the Prophet recited the text and a
Companion wrote it down. Purely written transmission can be dis-
counted due to the significance of the variants in number and nature.
Purely oral transmission can be ruled out, too, for several reasons. The
variations that arose in the ḥadīth literature during the first century AH
provide a good idea of what to expect from purely oral transmission:
entire paragraphs would be worded differently, with additions, omissions,
and transpositions at the sentence and paragraph levels. The differences
seen in C-1, rather, compare to ḥadīth variants arising in the late second
century AH, when the use of writing was common. (Against this, one
might object that the transmission of the Qur’ān would have required a
high standard of memorization, and, therefore, perhaps memorization
could convey the text with precision. The objection is moot to a degree,
however, given that the C-1 variants show that the text was in fact not
transmitted precisely. Besides, the thousand or so pointing and vocaliza-
tion variants of the written ‘Uthmānic text highlight the fallibility of
oral transmission, and certain ‘Uthmānic variant readings presuppose a
written skeletal text that was on occasion read seemingly without a
memory of the spoken form: take ‘inda versus ‘ibād in Q 43.19, yaquṣṣu
versus yaqḍi in Q 6.57, and yusayyirukum versus yanshurukum in Q
10.22.) Another indication of the use of writing is that the textual vari-
ants in C-1, while numerous, remain the exception rather than the norm.
This holds even for “minor” elements of language, including particles,
prepositions, suffixes, etc.58 Moreover, even a careful memorizer who re-
produces the words exactly is prone to getting the order of the verses
wrong; yet C-1 has the same verses and the same order of verses as the
standard Qur’ān.
57
) Rāmyār, Tārīkh-i Qur’ān, 429.
58
The frequency and nature of the variants indicate that the branching
off of the C-1 and the ‘Uthmānic text types must have involved semi-oral
transmission, that is, some combination of written and oral transmission.
Ascertaining the precise manner in which orality and writing were com-
bined requires a considerable amount of research. For now, two different
hypotheses may be advanced. One theory would be that transmission
involved the reciting of the text and the simultaneous writing down of
the recitation by a Companion, but not precise, word-for-word dictation.
The variants indicate a recitation that was performed faster than a
hearer could take down with complete fidelity. The second theory would
be that a Companion with a good memory wrote down a sūra not simul-
taneously with hearing it, but after the recitation had been complete, for
example, after he went home. He could have taken notes during the reci-
tation that would serve as a mnemonic. The use of such notes, the scribe’s
good memory, and his prior familiarity with the Qur’ān may explain why
most of the text remained unchanged, even when it came to the relatively
small linguistic elements, while the time gap between the hearing and
writing would explain the differences that arose.
There are several possible explanations for why the leaves of the
original manuscript were reused to prepare a new one. The original codex
may have been worn out due to extensive use over a number of decades.
Just how quickly the pages were worn out would depend on how often
the manuscript was used, something that we are not in a position to
know. In addition, the orthographic and paleographic differences be-
tween the two layers are consistent with their being separated by a pe-
riod long enough for the codex to have been worn out: though both
scripts are Ḥijāzī, the upper writing is more compact, uses more alifs,
and uses more dots for distinguishing the consonants.59 Alternatively,
part of the lower codex may have been damaged in an accident. As a
third possibility, the fact that the lower writing belongs to a non-
‘Uthmānic textual tradition may have been the motive, since C-1 would
have become obsolete as the parallel ‘Uthmānic tradition came to be
regarded as the standard. These explanations, of course, are not mutually
exclusive.60
Some scholars will consider only a narrative of suppression. Indeed, it
is possible that the original owner(s) recycled the codex due to a prefer-
ence for the ‘Uthmānic version. However, this would not necessarily
mean that the scribe considered the lower writing wrong or illegitimate.
59
60
) Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 370.
Early traditions preserve a wide spectrum of attitudes towards the codi-

ces of Ibn Mas‘ūd and other Companions, some depreciatory, some adula-
tory, and some neutral. Many reports imply the legitimacy of Ibn
Mas‘ūd’s codex or other Companion codices. Even some of the reports
that express preference for the standard text do so. However, we are
aware of only one report that denies the basic legitimacy and divine
origin of Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex. Kūfans who held Ibn Mas‘ūd (d. AH 33) in
high esteem quoted the statement from al-Ḥajjāj (d. 95). The latter was
notorious for his opposition to Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex, and he was not re-
membered fondly for that in Kūfa, where the local school of law saw Ibn
Mas‘ūd as its founder, where Sulaymān al-A‘mash (d. 147) continued to
recite Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex alongside the ‘Uthmānic text and transmit its
variants, and where important Qur’ān reciters such as Ibrāhīm al-
Nakha‘ī (d. 96), Ibn Waththāb (d. 103), Ṭalḥa b. Muṣarrif (d. 112), al-
A‘mash (d. 147), and Ḥamza (d. 156) were influenced to varying degrees
by Ibn Mas‘ūd’s text type even when they were reciting ‘Uthmān’s text. 61
On closer examination, the quotation from al-Ḥajjāj appears as a possi-
ble exaggeration by Kūfan Qur’ān reciters, fashioned to make al-Ḥajjāj
appear all the more outrageous.62
61
) For an example of Ibn Mas‘ūd’s influence on ‘Uthmānic readings in Kūfa,
see Sadeg hi,“Criteria for Emending the Text of the Qur’ān.”
62
) The report was transmitted through the Kūfan Qur’ān reciter Abū Bakr
b.‘Ayyāsh (d. AH 193) from the well-known Kūfan Qur’ān specialists ‘Āṣim b. Abī
al-Najūd (d. 128) and Sulaymān al-A‘mash (d. 147). Here are two representative
versions: (Version 1) Ibn Mas‘ūd “says (or thinks) that his Qur’ān is from God.
By God, it is nothing but Bedouin rajaz poetry (mā hiya illā rajaz min rajaz al-
a‘rāb); God almighty did not send it to his Prophet.” (Version 2) Ibn Mas‘ūd “re-
cites the Qur’ān, versifying it as the Bedouin recite rajaz poetry, and calls this
[reciting] the Qur’ān (yaqra’u al-Qur’ān rajzan ka-rajz al-a‘rāb wa-yaqūlu hādhā
al-Qur’ān).” See Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq, ed. ‘Alī Shīrī (Beirut: Dār
al-Fikr, 1415/1995), 12:159–62; Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Sunan, ed. Sa‘īd
Muḥammad al-Laḥḥām (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1410/1990), 2:400. The first version
quoted above is surprising as it depicts Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex as different in kind
from the ‘Uthmānic Qur’ān. That goes against everything else that has been
related about that codex, including the detailed account provided by al-A‘mash,
whose authority this tradition invokes. (On al-A‘mash’s description of Ibn
Mas‘ūd’s codex, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,” 391–3.) It is possi-
ble that this anomalous version adapts and embellishes the second version,
which says something quite different and less unexpected. In the second version
quoted above, the issue is not the contents of Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex, but rather the
manner in which he (and presumably his followers) recited the Qur’ān. He is
accused of having recited it in the way a Bedouin would recite poetry, presuma-
One idea that seems to have been in fairly wide circulation already in
the first century of Islam was that the Qur’ān was revealed in Seven
Modes (sab‘at aḥruf).63 Translated from the language of metaphysics into
that of history, this notion entails that the Companion codices were all
legitimate despite their differences, as they ultimately represented what
the Prophet’s scribes wrote down, and as they all enjoyed the Prophet’s
endorsement. Such codical pluralism being an early notion, those who
sought to elevate the ‘Uthmānic version above the others could not sim-
ply declare the other codices non-Qur’ānic. Some early scholars found a
solution by making use of an existing tradition that said that the
bly a sacrilege. Another version of al-Ḥajjāj’s speech transmitted through a

Baṣran isnād also suggests that the issue was the manner of recitation: it says
that Ibn Mas‘ūd would “recite the Qur’ān as if it were Bedouin rajaz poetry
(yaqra’u l-Qur’ān ka-annahu rajaz al-a‘rāb; Abū l-Ḥasan al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūj al-
nd
dhahab, ed. Yūsuf As‘ad Dāghir, 2 ed. (Qum: Dār al-Hijra, 1409), 3:143). The
possibility that reciting the Qur’ān like poetry was controversial is confirmed
by another Kūfan tradition on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ūd that discourages
reciting the Qur’ān like poetry (wa-lā tahudhdhū l-Qur’ān ka-hadhdh al-shi‘r,
wa-lā tanthurū nathr al-daqal, quoted in Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, ed. Sa‘īd al-
Laḥḥām (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1409/1989), 7:186). A related point of controversy
was the chanting or singing of the Qur’ān. See Muḥammad b. Ya‘qūb al-Kulaynī,
th
al-Kāfī, 4 ed. (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyya, HS 1365), 2:614; al-Suyūṭī,
Itqān, 1:243; M. Talbi,“La qirā’a bi-l-alḥān,” Arabica 5 (1958): 183–90. (We owe
the last reference to Michael Cook.) In sum, one version of the report perhaps
rearranges the words of a more primitive version and in doing so exaggerates the
virulence of al-Ḥajjāj’s words, an unsurprising transformation given that the
tradition circulated in a milieu that was hostile to al-Ḥajjāj. If, however, one
considers the more audacious version as representing the original wording, then
it should be considered as hyperbole, since it goes against the available evidence.
63
) Seven Modes (sab‘at aḥruf) traditions include Prophetic and non-
Prophetic reports. For an overview of the matns and isnāds of the Prophetic
ḥadīths, see ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ al-Qāri’, Ḥadīth al-aḥruf al-
sab‘a: dirāsa li-isnādihi wa-matnihi wa-khtilāf al-‘ulamā’ fī ma‘nāhu wa-ṣilatihi
bi-l-qirā’āt al-Qur’āniyya (Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risāla, 1423/2002), 9–41. ‘Abd
al-Fattāḥ’s work has the merit of including related traditions that do not use the
words sab‘at aḥruf, and the demerit of excluding non-Prophetic āthār. For the
English translation and brief discussion of a Seven Modes report that quotes
Ibn Mas‘ūd instead of the Prophet, see Sadeg hi and B ergmann,“The Codex,”
412–3. A detailed analysis of the Seven Modes traditions needs to be conducted.
In the meantime, our impression is that the idea dates from the first century
AH.
Prophet used to present the Qur’ān to the angel Gabriel every year. They
linked these successive presentations with the different Companion co-
dices, and they said that the ‘Uthmānic text was the last presentation,
implying that it superseded the others.64 The admirers of Ibn Mas‘ūd
responded by pointing out that his reading would surely have been up-
dated if a text had been abrogated, or they reacted by simply making
Ibn Mas‘ūd’s Qur’ān the final presentation. 65 Both sets of traditions
accepted that the Prophet introduced multiple versions of the Qur’ān as
the text was updated annually, and both took it for granted that Com-
panion codices represented legitimate recordings of the revelations; they
disagreed only over which codex was the last version.
The codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd eventually lost popularity, but codical plu-
ralism did not vanish altogether. Although many different interpreta-
tions of the “Seven Modes” arose over time, many scholars continued to
regard them as encompassing the Companion codices. Ibn al-Jazarī (d.
AH 833) wrote that the majority of scholars held that the Seven Modes
are not limited to the master codices ‘Uthmān sent to the cities – that is
to say, they can include non-‘Uthmānic variants – and that they held the
‘Uthmānic codices to constitute precisely the Prophet’s “final presenta-
tion.”66 He thus found some Companion textual variants “acceptable”
(yuqbal) even though he disapproved of reciting them in prayers. He
64
) See, for example, Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 7:205; Ibn Sa‘d, al-Ṭabaqāt
al-kubrā (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1968), 2:195; Muḥammad b.‘Abd Allāh al-Ḥākim al-
Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak, ed. Yūsuf al-Mar‘ashlī, Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa (n.d.),
2:230; Aḥmad b. ‘Alī al-Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, ed. ‘Abd al-Ghaffār al-Bandārī
(Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1411/1991), 5:71–2; Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī,
al-Durr al-manthūr fī l-tafsīr bi-l-ma’thūr (Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘rifa li-l-Ṭibā‘a
wa-l-Nashr, 1979), 1:106.
65
) Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 7:205; al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak,
2:230; al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, 1:106.
66
) Ibn al-Jazarī writes, “Most scholars from earlier and more recent times
and the imams of the Muslims have held that these ‘Uthmānic codices contain
only that portion of the Seven Modes that fits their rasm” (wa-dhahaba jamāhīr
al-‘ulamā’ min al-salaf wa-l-khalaf wa-a’immat al-muslimīn ilā anna hādhihi
l-maṣāḥif al-‘uthmāniyya mushtamila ‘alā mā yaḥtamiluhu rasmuhā min al-
aḥruf al-sab‘a faqaṭ), and adds that the ‘Uthmānic codices constitute precisely
the Prophet’s final presentation of the text to Gabriel. See Ibn al-Jazarī,
al-Nashr fī l-qirā’āt al-‘ashr, ed. ‘Alī Muḥammad al-Ḍabbā‘ (Beirut: Dār al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, n.d.), 31. I was led to this reference by a forthcoming essay of
Yasin Dutton, entitled,“Orality, Literacy and the ‘Seven Aḥruf’ Ḥadīth.”
mentions however that some other scholars did endorse the use of Com-
panion codices in worship.67 Many pre-modern scholars, if they were with
us today, might have looked reverentially at the lower writing’s variants
as instantiations of the Seven Modes while perhaps denying the text the
status of the ‘Uthmānic Qur’ān in prayers. In sum, neither in early Islam
nor later did the preference for the standard text always entail a dis-
missal of the Companion codices.
The Media and Manuscripts
As much as we would like to disregard the media, it is difficult to do

so. Academic publications increasingly rely on them, and professors as-
sign newspaper articles for their classes. Moreover, it is instructive to
take note of the rumors that circulate among modern academics and the
journalistic articles that mirror and feed them. Stories, after all, spread
better if they capture the worldviews, hopes, and fears of their host
populations.
In the late 1990s, a narrative swept a number of Western universities,
and it can be epitomized by one word: suppression. One version was that
Yemen was prone to concealing the precious newly-discovered manu-
scripts in its possession, leading the Europeans who were restoring the
parchments to keep their secrets under wraps for the time being. One
journalist, Toby Lester, asserted as much based on interviews with
G. Puin.68 He added that “detailed examination … is something the
67
) For Ibn al-Jazarī’s views on the Seven Modes and legitimate recitations,
see Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr, 7–9, 14–15, 26–8, 31–3, 44. He holds that any reading
is authoritative and belongs to the Seven if (i) it is in good Arabic, (ii) it does not
differ skeletally-morphemically from one of the ‘Uthmānic regional codices, and
(iii) it is transmitted soundly from individuals. If the reading does not fit the
‘Uthmānic text (khaṭṭ al-muṣḥaf) but the other two conditions are satisfied, then
it is “accepted, but not recited” in rituals (p. 14). He writes that, unlike him, some
scholars permit the recitation of such Companion variants in ritual prayers,
while others take the middle ground by allowing their use in worship except in
the case of the Fātiḥa (pp. 13–4).This opens the door to the acceptability of some
non-‘Uthmānic variants even in his relatively restrictive approach, and he gives
as examples two acceptable Companion variants that differ significantly from
the ‘Uthmānic text at the phrase level. Cf. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Qāri’, Ḥadīth al-
aḥruf al-sab‘a, 45–8.
68
) Toby Lester,“What is the Koran?,” 44.
Yemeni authorities have seemed reluctant to allow.”69 A more forward

version of the motif had Yemen prevent the publication of manuscripts
outright. In any case, the narrative implied that European academics
had met the resistance and intolerance of people who are beholden to
religious dogma and unaccustomed to rational inquiry.
The media weaved the suppression motif within martyrologies and
harrowing tales of victimization. 70 Reports touching the Ṣan‘ā’ manu-
scripts mentioned the Rushdie affair and the persecution of Naṣr
Ḥāmid Abū Zayd.71 The New York Times presented as fact hearsay
about a Palestinian scholar of early Islam, Suliman Bashear, being
injured when his students threw him out of a second-story window. 72
(Several people who were close to the late Bashear told us that the event
never happened. For example, Bashear’s wife, Dr. Lily Feidy, in an
e-mail message dated August 14, 2011, wrote,“Please note that Suliman
was never attacked or injured by his students; nor was he physically
attacked by anybody else. I have been asked this question a million
times”). The New York Times made much of a book of Christoph Lux-
enberg being turned down by a publisher.73 The Wall Street Journal
related an account narrated by G. Puin about Yemen seizing the images
of the Ṣan‘ā’ manuscripts that Bothmer had prepared.74 (In a tele-
69
) Toby Lester,“What is the Koran?,” 44. See above, footnotes 31 and 32,
for assertions about Yemeni obstructionism.
70
) Lester,“What is the Koran?”; Alexander Stille,“Scholars are Quietly
Offering New Theories of the Koran,” The New York Times, March 2, 2002; Hig-
g ins, “The Lost Archive.” Nicholas Kristof,“Islam, Virgins, and Grapes,” The
New York Times, April 22, 2009; Nicholas Kristof, “Martyrs, Virgins, and
Grapes,” The New York Times, August 4, 2004. With the exception of Higgins’
story, these articles celebrate revisionist scholarship.
71
) Lester,“What is the Koran?,” 45, 50. Compare to Kristof,“Islam, Vir-
gins and Grapes.”
72
) Stille,“Scholars are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran.”
73
) Stille,“Scholars are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran.” Stille
assumes that publishers normally accept a book if there is some good scholar
somewhere who likes the book. Thus, the fact that there may be some scholars
who like Luxenberg’s book is for Stille proof of discrimination. Incidentally, one
of the scholars who, according to Stille, praised Luxenberg’s book is Patricia
Crone.Yet, in reference to the works by Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg,
Crone writes, “both books are open to so many scholarly objections (notably
amateurism in Luxenberg’s case) that they cannot be said to have done the field
much good” (Patricia Crone,“What do we Actually Know about Mohammed?,”
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp).
74
) Higg ins,“The Lost Archive.”
phone interview on August 26, 2011, Bothmer called the account “ri-
diculous” and blamed the journalist). And the New York Times reported
that Euro-American academia is experiencing a chill due to Muslim
threats of violence.75
The narrative of oppression resonates with the self-image of academ-
ics as upholders of reason and with archetypical notions about the con-
flict between rationality and traditional religion, a clash that is most
commonly symbolized in modern culture by Galileo’s struggle with the
Church.76 The suppression motif also seemed to resolve a conspicuous
75
) Stille writes that Muslim threats of violence have sent “a chill through
universities around the world” that has “affected non-Muslim scholars in West-
ern countries” (Stille, “Scholars are Quietly Offering New Theories of the
Koran”). However, he does not mention any instance of a European or North
American university professor receiving a threat or being harmed. According to
an anonymous “researcher” in the U.S. whom he quotes, the situation is so bad
that “it’s not possible to say anything other than sugary nonsense about Islam.”
Yet, most academic publications are non-sugary, and some are even sensible.
Stille’s examples include the striking rumor about Bashear, beside Luxenberg’s
initial difficulty in finding a publisher. His picture of Euro-American scholar-
ship may not be real, but it probably accurately reflects the siege mentality of
some of his informants. Stille’s, Lester’s, Higgins’, and Kristof ’s portrayals of the
state of scholarship in the Muslim world suffer from similar shortcomings.
76
) The historian of skepticism, Richard Popkin, has highlighted how Euro-
pean skeptics selectively appropriated and imagined Galileo’s experience to
make it a symbol for an essential conflict between reason and religion. See Rich-
ard Popkin,“Scepticism, Theology and the Scientific Revolution in the Seven-
teenth Century,” in Problems in the Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the
International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, volume 3,
ed. Imre Lakatos et al. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1968), 1–28. It
should be noted that while a general attitude of unease with religion best ex-
plains the wide acceptance of the media’s claims among academics, some of the
interlocutors target Islam in particular rather than religion in general. G. Puin,
for example, frames his work as a reaction against Muslim criticisms of Christi-
anity that focus on the textual issues of the Gospels – an approach that was
made popular in the mid-1980s among English-speaking Muslim non-specialists
by a meagerly-trained charismatic speaker named Ahmed Deedat. Puin goes on
the counterattack with a tu quoque argument about textual corruption in the
Qur’ān:“Muslims… like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has
a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has
been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove
that the Koran has a history too. The Sana’a fragments will help us do this”
(Puin, quoted in Lester,“What Is the Koran?,” 44).
paradox: on the one hand, it was indicated that the Ṣan‘ā’ manuscripts
refuted core religious doctrines; on the other hand, it was not explained
how they did so, as nothing was revealed about the manuscripts beyond
the finding that there are variants, a banal observation from the stand-
point of traditional Muslim scholarship.77 The mysterious information gap
was explained by putting the responsibility at the door of Yemen and its
presumed propensity for withholding purportedly embarrassing evidence.
The suppression narrative is inaccurate. It is true that G. Puin did
not share his photographs with scholars who asked for them, nor publish
a great deal on them himself,78 but this was his personal choice (to which
77
) The journalists and some of their academic informants suggest that Mus-
lim scholars are unaware of textual variants. They disregard the dozens of vol-
umes written on variants and the textual-critical discussions about them in the
tafsīr genre and other sources. They also imply that it is only Western scholars
who are now applying proper “analytical tools” to the Qur’ān (Kristof,“Islam,
Virgins, and Grapes”). The journalists disregard evidence that complicates their
narrative that modern scholarship has upended core Muslim beliefs. Those who
discuss both Wansbrough’s theories and early manuscripts do not draw the ele-
mentary inference that the latter refutes the former: they are interested in the
manuscripts only because they believe they refute traditional views. They also
do not note that the palimpsest undermines the modern theory that the Com-
panion codices were fictitious. Evidence is deemed interesting only when there is
at least a vague sense that it supports revisionist theories.
78
) G. Puin’s scholarly output on the Ṣan‘ā’collection consists of three pub-
lications in which he says very little about the manuscripts and does not discuss
the palimpsest: Gerd-Rüdiger Puin,“Observations,” cited above in footnote 33;
Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, “Über die Bedeutung der ältesten Koranfragmente aus
Sanaa (Jemen) für die Orthographiegeschichte des Korans,” Magazin Forschung,
Universität des Saarlandes, 1 (1999): 37–40, 46; Gerd-Rüdiger Puin,“Die Utopie
einer kritischen Koranedition,” in Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen
Jahrhunderte, ed. Markus Groß et al. (Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008), 516–71.
In the first article, Puin writes,“My observations do not claim to be either
new or unexpected, except for the last paragraph which discusses the different
arrangements of the Sūrahs” (p. 108). This refers to his idea that sūra transitions
in the manuscripts that do not match the standard sūra ordering point to non-
standard textual traditions. However, the author does not reveal any informa-
tion that can be used to evaluate the evidence (Are the manuscripts in question
early or late? Do their texts support a non-‘Uthmānic classification? Is there
any indication that the manuscripts constituted complete codices or simply
selections of sūras?). For more on this article, see above, footnote 33.
G. Puin’s second article focuses on the already well-known fact that in an-
cient orthography a tooth could signify the ā sound. He says that the tooth
he was entitled), not the doing of Yemen. Furthermore, there was nothing
to prevent other scholars from going to Yemen to study the folios and
write about them. The manuscripts and microfilms remained available to
visitors. In 2007, Sergio Noja Noseda and his erstwhile student Mounir
Arbach freely prepared images of the DAM 01-27.1 folios as part of a
project founded by Christian Robin. When we asked Robin whether
Yemen tried to hinder such work, he answered in the negative and told us
corresponding to the second ī in Ibrāhīm and the ay in Shayṭān were originally

pronounced as ā, yielding Abrāhām and Sāṭān, but that these pronunciations
were forgotten later. In fact, several reciters, including one of the Seven, the Syr-
ian Ibn ‘Āmir (d. 118), read the name as Ibrāhām, as noted, for example, in al-
Khaṭīb, Mu‘jam, 1:187, 2:600, which in any case does not prove that this was
the name in early seventh-century Mecca. In addition, Puin notes that the am-
biguity of the tooth means that the word ilāh (‫)اﻟﻪ‬,“God,” could, in principle, be
spelled in the same way as the word ilayh (‫)اﻟﻴﻪ‬,“towards Him.”This leads him to
propose,“hypothetically,” an emendation that replaces ilayh with ilāh in lā ilāha
illā huwa ilayhi l-maṣīr (Q 40.3), which means,“There is no god but Him; to Him
is the journey.” The substitution yields lā ilāha illā huwa ilāhu l-maṣīr, which
means, “There is no god but Him, the god of destiny.” Puin exclaims, “What a
beautiful Qur’ānic sense! What a beautiful Biblical sense as compared to the
traditional interpretation!” But then he immediately rejects his hypothetical
proposal, stating,“the link between the word ‘destiny’ and the preposition ilā is
so well-established in many parallel passages of the Qur’ān that one should
consider the interpretation ‘God of destiny’ as a hasty conclusion.” Indeed, Puin
is right that the proposal is wrong (see Q 3.28, 24.42, 35.18, 5.18, 31.14, 42.15,
64.3, 22.48, 31.14, 50.43, 2.285, 60.4).
Puin thus imagines an emendation to a verse that is fairly clear and
straightforward, expresses excitement about the proposed reading, and then
says that his proposal cannot be right. What might bring about such an
approach? The verse in question may be among those that Puin considers as
“incomprehensible” and hence in need of emendation. He avers that a large part
of the Qur’ān “simply doesn’t make sense” (Puin, quoted in Lester, “What is
the Koran?,” 54), and he holds that Muslims, too, think of much of the Qur’ān as
meaningless. These premises have led to further conclusions: “This is what has
caused the traditional anxiety about translation. If the Koran is not compre-
hensible – if it can’t even be understood in Arabic – then it’s not translatable.
People fear that” (ibid.). This theory features a key idea in Puin’s conceptual
repertoire, namely that of the suppression of embarrassing data: it attributes
the Muslims’ misgivings about translations to the fear that the scripture will be
exposed for the largely meaningless text they recognize it to be.
G. Puin’s third article, by way of new information, mentions some spelling
variations in the manuscripts.
that they were granted greater access than would have been possible in
some European libraries. Robin and his colleagues have the blessing of
the Yemeni authorities to publish the images. We also asked Ursula
Dreibholz, the conservator for the restoration project, whether the
Yemeni authorities hampered research. She said no, and described the
Yemeni authorities as supportive.79
Moreover, other participants in the project in Yemen do not confirm
G. Puin’s statement that Yemeni authorities “want to keep this thing
low-profile” or that “they don’t want it made public that there is work
being done at all.”80 Ursula Dreibholz continued working on the pro-
ject in Yemen for four more years after the end of Puin’s involvement.
She spent more time on the project than anybody else, and for the last
three years she was the only foreigner to work fulltime in the Dār al-
Makhṭūṭāt. She told us that Yemeni authorities “were very grateful” for
the work done by the foreigners. They were “proud” of their treasures,
and “they brought school children, university students, foreign delega-
tions, religious dignitaries, and heads of state, like Franҫois Mitterrand,
Gerhard Schröder, and Prince Klaus of the Netherlands, to see the col-
lection.”81 Although the Yemeni authorities’ openness proved a boon to
scholarship, they were to be punished for it. The American media ampli-
fied the erroneous words of G. Puin, purveying a narrative that belittled
Yemen and misrepresented the work done there. The Arab press in turn
exaggerated the American story. The outcome was a media discourse in
Yemen borne of three stages of misrepresentation. This embarrassed the
Yemeni authorities responsible for the House of Manuscripts, and the
Head of the Antiquities Department had to defend before Parliament
the decision to bring in the foreigners.82
79
) The only credible instance of obstruction of which we know was related
to us by Dreibholz: a librarian claimed to have lost the key (to the study room, if
we recall correctly) (Dreibholz, telephone interview, August 8, 2011). Bothmer
volunteered that the key remained “lost” for a week (Bothmer, telephone inter-
view, August 26, 2011). We have not interviewed the librarian, and, in any case,
this incident was an aberration.
80
) Puin, quoted in Lester,“What Is the Koran?,” 44.
81
) Dreibholz, telephone interview, July 30, 2011.
82
) We rely on Dreibholz for the controversy inside Yemen (telephone
interview, July 30, 2011, and e-mail dated August 8, 2011).
A Note on the Edition
In late 2009, when we asked Robin for the photographs and the ul-
traviolent images of DAM 01-27.1, he agreed immediately and went
through some expense and trouble to make them available. The present
essay would not have been possible without Christian Robin’s initiative
and his exemplary openness and generosity. This edition of the lower
writing of Ṣan‘ā’ 1 is based on all the folios except one, namely folio 21 of
DAM 01-27.1, a picture of which we do not have. The folios are listed in
the following table.
Table 3. The Folios of Ṣan‘ā’ 1
Name Lower Text Upper Text Surviving

Fraction
2A 2.87–2.96 6.149–6.159 (almost) all
2B 2.96–2.105 6.159–7.11
Stanford 2007 recto 2.191–2.196 2.265–2.271 (almost) all
Stanford 2007 verso 2.197–2.205 2.271–2.277
David 86/2003 recto 2.206–2.217 2.277–2.282 (almost) all
David 86/2003 verso 2.217–2.223 2.282–2.286
Bonhams 2000 recto 5.41–5.48 4.33–4.43 (almost) all
Bonhams 2000 verso 5.48–5.54 4.43–4.56
4A 11.105–11.112 14.32–14.41 less than ½
4B 11.120–8.3 14.52–15.16
5A 8.73–9.7 16.73–16.89 (almost) all
5B 9.7–9.16 16.89–16.102
6A 9.17–9.26 16.102–16.118 (almost) all
6B 9.26–9.34 16.118–17.6
20A 9.70–9.81 30.26–30.40 more than ¾
20B 9.81–9.90 30.40–30.54
21A 9.106–9.113 31.24–32.4 ?
21B 9.114–9.120 32.4–32.20
22A 9.121–19.5 32.20–33.6 more than ¾
22B 19.6–19.29 33.6–33.18
23A 19.29–19.53 33.18–33.29 more than ¾
23B 19.54–19.74 33.30–33.37
7A 22.15–22.26 17.40–17.58 about ¾
7B 22.27–22.39 17.59–17.77
31A 12.17–12.20 43.63–43.69 less than ¼

31B 12.27–12.31 43.89–44.11
32A 12.111–18.5 47.15–47.20 less than ¼
32B 18.15–18.18 47.32–48.2
13A 16.26–16.37 21.42–21.72 (almost) all
13B 16.37–16.59 21.72–21.92
14A 16.68–16.69 21.111–22.1 less than 1/10
14B 16.78–16.79 22.15–22.16
9A 33.51–33.57 19.38–19.64 about ¾
9B 33.57–33.72 19.64–19.98
25A 39.25–39.36 37.38–37.59 less than ¼
25B 39.42–39.47 37.73–37.88
26A 39.51–39.70 37.102–37.134 less than ½
26B 39.70–40.8 37.134–37.172
15A 20.23–20.61 25.10–25.34 (almost) all
15B 20.61–20.80 25.34–25.59
30B 20.122–20.133 42.38–42.48 about ½
30A 21.5–21.19 42.21–42.29
10A ? – 24.13 20.1–20.43 more than ¾
10B 24.13–24.23 20.44–20.74
11A 24.23–24.32 20.74–20.98 (almost) all
11B 24.32–24.40 20.98–20.130
33A 34.13–34.23 55.16–56.4 about ¾
33B 34.23–34.33 56.5–56.69
34A 34.40–34.47 57.1–57.10 about ¼
34B 13.1–13.5 57.16–57.22
35A 13.6–13.14 57.27–58.6 about ¼
35B 13.16–13.21 58.11–58.22
36A 13.25–13.31 59.1–59.10 about ½
36B 13.33–13.40 59.14–60.1
16B 28.19–28.24 26.198–26.221 about 1/10
16A 28.30–28.35 26.155–26.176
28A 37.15–37.33 41.17–41.27 about 1/3
28B 37.43–37.68 41.33–41.43
29A 37.82–37.103 41.47–42.5 about 1/3
29B 37.118–37.144 42.10–42.16
18A 15.4–15.33 28.58–28.74 (almost) all
18B 15.33–15.74 28.74–28.86

19B 15.87–25.8 29.43–29.54 about ½
19A 25.14–25.27 29.29–29.40
24A illegible 34.52–35.9 about ½
24B 30.38–30.50 35.10–35.18
3A illegible 9.112–9.115 less than 1/10
3B 35.39–35.49 9.124–9.127
Christies 2008 verso 63.1–62.11 5.3–5.9 (almost) all
Christies 2008 recto 62.11–89–90.6 4.171–5.3
1A illegible 6.49–6.61 (almost) all
1B illegible 6.61–6.73
8A illegible 18.22 less than 1/10
8B illegible 18.32
12B illegible 21.38–21.42
17A no guess 27.25–27.29 less than 1/10
17B no guess 27.46–27.49
27B illegible 39.6
The order in which we transcribe the folios in our edition is given in

the above table, and it broadly follows the sūra arrangement of the codex
of Ubayy b. Ka‘b as an approximation to that of C-1. The DAM 01-27.1
folios are designated by numbers referring to their order in the upper
text. When we cite a sūra number, it refers to the ‘Uthmānic rank. When
we give a verse number, we follow the Kūfan scheme used in most of the
Qur’āns printed in the Middle East.
Since they postdate the upper text, the lower modifier hand(s) that
are in black are not included in the edition.83 By contrast, apparent in-
sertions or corrections that predate the upper writing or have a chance
of predating it are discussed in the footnotes. In particular, we discuss a
greenish script that occasionally modifies the lower text. We are not sure
whether it came before or after the upper text.
In the case of the three and a half folios that were transcribed by
Elisabeth Puin, despite numerous differences, our transcriptions and
commentary overlap with hers to a significant degree. Moreover, Alba
Fedeli has identified and discussed a number of important variants.
83
) On the lower modifier, see footnote 12 above.
Rather than cite every instance of overlap with their works individually
in the footnotes, we have acknowledged their contributions in a collective
manner above, and we do so also here and in the Bibliography below.
Reading the lower writing is a difficult and tedious task, and errors
are inevitable. Pictures taken under a brighter light and with a higher
resolution than those we have used for the 01-27.1 folios should allow
more accurate readings. For these folios, ultraviolet photographs
proved very useful. The method that will achieve the highest accuracy
is X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) imaging, and one only hopes that some-
day it will be used for the entire manuscript. Uwe Bergmann’s appli-
cation of the technique to Stanford 2007 revealed features of the text
that are otherwise invisible, bringing to light the residues buried in the
parchment of iron, copper, and zinc from the ink. For the Stanford 2007
and David 86/2003 folios, we had access to high-resolution, bright pho-
tographs. The images available to us for the Christies and Bonhams
folios are low-resolution. It is our hope that greater effort by other
scholars and better images yielding more accurate readings will render
this edition obsolete.
Symbols and Conventions
(X) The text is only partly visible, but enough is visible to give a
good reason for the reading X.
[X] Some visible traces of ink are consistent with the reading X.
However, they may also be consistent with other readings.
Hence, the reading is conjectural.
/ / The folio is physically present but there is barely any trace
of text. No letter of the alphabet is recognizable. The space
between the slashes is approximately proportional to the size
of the lacuna.
{ } The folio is physically missing. The space between the curly
brackets is approximately proportional to the size of the
lacuna.
‫۝‬ Verse division. The absence of this symbol normally does not
mean that a verse division is lacking in the lower text; it only
means that one is not visible.
~~~ Decoration.
‫‪Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān‬‬ ‫‪41‬‬
‫‪The Lower Text of Ṣan‘ā’ 1‬‬
‫)‪Folio 2 A (Q 2.87 – 2.96‬‬
‫و ا د ا ‪)//‬ٮٮـ(ﺎ ﻣﻮ ﺳﯽ ا ﻟﮑٮٮ و ٯٯٮـ]ٮـ[ﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ )ا( ٮﺮ } {‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ٮﺎ ﻟﺮ ﺳﻞ )و( ا )ﺗ(ٮـ]ٮـ[ﺎ )ﻋٮـ(ﺴﻰ ا )ٮـﮟ( ﻣﺮ )ٮـ(ﻢ ا ﻟ‪//‬ٮـ]ٮـ[)ٮ( )و( ا ]ٮـ[} {‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ٮﻪ ٮﺎ ]ﻟ[‪) //‬و( ح ا ﻟٯﺪ )س( ا ٯـﮑﻠ]ﻤ[ﺎ ﺣﺎ ﮐﻢ ر } {‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ل )ٮـﻤ(ﺎ ﻻ )ٮـ(ﻬ]ﻮ[ ﯼ ا ]ٮـ[ٯـﺴﮑﻢ ٯﺮ )ٮـ(]ٯـ[ﺎ ﮐﺪ ٮٮﻢ ]و ٯﺮ[ } {‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ٮـ]ٯـ[ٮـﻠ]ﻮ[ ں ۝ و ٯﺎ ﻟ]ﻮ[ ا ٯﻠﻮ ٮٮﺎ ﻋﻠڡ ٮﻞ ]ﻃ[‪//‬ﻊ ا ]ﻟ[ﻠﻪ } {‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻋﻠ]ٮـ[)ﻬ(ﺎ ٮـ)ﻄ(ﻠﻤﻬﻢ ٯٯـﻠ)ٮـ(ﻠﺎ ﻣﺎ ٮﻮ ﻣٮﻮ ں ۝ و ﻟﻤﺎ ﺣﺎ هﻢ )ﮐٮٮ( } {‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ﻣﺼﺪ ٯ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ و ٯﺪ ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ ا ﻣﮟ ٯٮﻞ ٮـﺴﺘٯـ]ﺘ[ﺤ]ﻮ[ ں }{‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﯽ ا ﻟﺪ )ٮـﮟ( ﮐٯﺮ و ا ٯﻠﻤﺎ ﺣﺎ هﻢ ٯـ)ﻌ(]ﺮ[ ٯﻮ ﻩ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫آٯـ)ﺮ( و ا ٮﻪ ٯﻠﻌٮﻪ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﯽ ا ﻟﮑٯﺮ ٮـﮟ ۝ ٯٮٮﺴﻤﺎ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ﺳﺮ و ا ٮﻪ ا ٮٯﺴﻬﻢ ا ں ٮﮑٯﺮ و ا ٮﻤﺎ ا ٮﺮ ل ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ٮـﻌٮـ)ﺎ( و ﻋﺪ و ا ا ں ٮٮﺮ ل ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ )ﻣﮟ( ٯﺼﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﯽ‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ﻣﮟ ٮﺴﺎ ﻣﮟ ﻋٮﺪ ﻩ ٯٮﺎ )و( ٮﻌﺼٮ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻋﺼٮ و‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﮑٯﺮ ٮـﮟ ﻋﺪ ا ٮ ا )ﻟ(]ٮﻢ[ ۝ و ا د ا ٯٮﻞ ﻟﻬﻢ ا‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫ﻣٮﻮ ا ٮﻤﺎ ا ٮﺮ ل ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٯﺎ ﻟﻮ ا ]ٮﻮ[ ﻣﮟ ٮﻤﺎ ا ]ٮﺮ[‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫ل ﻋﻠٮٮﺎ ﻣﮟ ﮐٮٮ و ٮﮑٯﺮ و ں ٮﻤﺎ و ر ا ﻩ و هﻮ )ا(‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ﻟﺤٯ ﻣﺼﺪ ٯﺎ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ ٯﻞ ا )ٯـ(ٮٯٮﻠﻮ ں ا ٮٮٮﺎ ا ﻟ]ﻠﻪ[‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫ﻣﮟ ٯٮﻞ ا ں ﮐٮٮﻢ ﻣﻮ ﻣ]ٮـ[ٮـﮟ )۝( و ﻟٯﺪ ﺣﺎ ﮐﻢ ﻣ)ﻮ(‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ﺳﯽ ٮﺎ ﻟٮٮٮٮ ٮﻢ ا ٮـﺤﺪ ٮـﻢ ا ﻟ)ﻌ(ﺤﻞ ﻣﮟ ٮـﻌﺪ ﻩ ]و[ )ا(‬
‫‪84‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫ٮٮﻢ ﻃﻠﻤﻮ ں ۝ و ا د ا ﺣﺪ ٮﺎ ﻣٮٮٯﮑﻢ و )ر( ٯـ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫ٯﻮ ٯﮑﻢ ا ﻟﻄﻮ ر ﺣﺪ و ﻣﺎ ا ٮٮٮـﮑﻢ ٮٯﻮ ]ﻩ[ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫ا ﺳﻤﻌﻮ ا ]ٯـ[ﻠﻮ ا ﺳﻤ]ﻌ[ٮﺎ و ﻋﺼٮٮﺎ و ا ﺷر ٮﻮ )ا( }{‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫ٯﯽ ٯﻠﻮ ٮﻬﻢ ا ﻟﻌﺤﻞ ٮﮑٯﺮ هﻢ ٮٮﺴﻤﺎ ٮﺎ ﻣﺮ ﮐﻢ ‪)//‬ﻪ( } {‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫ا ٮﻤٮﮑﻢ ا )ں( ﮐٮٮﻢ ﻣﻮ ﻣٮٮـﮟ ۝ ٯﻞ ا ں آ)ٮٮ( ﻟﮑ)ﻢ( } {‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫ا ﻟﺪ ا )ر( ا ﻻ ﺣﺮ ﻩ ﻋٮﺪ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ‪)//‬ﮟ( ]د و[ ں ا } {‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫ﻟ]ٮـ[ﺎ س ٯٮﻤٮﻮ ا ا ﻟﻤﻮ ٮ ا ں ﮐٮٮﻢ ﺻﺪ ٯـ]ٮـ[)ﮟ(} {‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫و ]ﻻ[ ٮـ]ٮـ[)ﻤٮـ(]ﻮ[ ]ٮـ[ﻪ ا ٮﺪ ا ٮﻤﺎ ٯﺪ ﻣٮ ا ٮﺪ } {‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫و ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠٮﻢ ٮﺎ ﻟﻄﻠـ‪//‬ٮـﮟ ]۝[ و ﻟ]ٮـ[)ﺤ(]ﺪ[ ٮﻬﻢ ا ﺣﺮ ]ص[} {‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪84‬‬
‫‪) There are traces above the tooth that may belong to consonant-‬‬
‫‪distinguishing marks for the letter tā’.‬‬
{ } (‫ و ﻣ)ﮟ‬//‫ ]ﻩ[ ا ﻟ)ﺪ( ٮٮـ‬/ /(‫ا ﻟٮﺎ س )ﻋ(ﻠﻰ )ه(]ﺪ[ )ﻩ( ]ا ﻟ[)ﺤٮـ‬ 28
{ }//‫ )هﻢ( ﻟﻮ ]ٮـ[ﻌ‬//[‫ﻟﺪ ٮـﮟ ا ﺳﺮ ﮐﻮ ا )ٮﻮ( ]د ا ﺣ‬ 29
Folio 2 B (Q 2.96 – 2.105)
‫ﻣﮟ ا ﻟ]ﻌ[)ﺪ( ا ٮ ا ں ٮـ)ﻌ(ﻤر و ﻣﺎ‬ 85

[‫ ﺣ]ﻪ‬/ /‫} {]ﻪ[ و )ﻣ(]ﺎ[ )ه(ﻮ ٮـ‬ 1
87
‫ ٮـ)ﻌ(ﻤﻠﻮ ں ۝ ٯﻞ )ﻣﮟ( ﮐﺎ ں ﻋﺪ )و( ا ﻟﺤ]ٮـ[ﺮ ٮﻞ‬/ / ‫ﻞ‬/ / (‫} {]ﻟ[)ﻠﻪ‬
86
2
‫ ﻟ]ﻪ[ ﻋﻠﯽ ]ٯـ[ﻠ]ٮـ[)ﮎ( ٮـ)ﺎ( د ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ )ه(ﺪ ﯼ‬/ / ‫ﻪ ا‬//{ } 3
[‫ﮟ ]۝‬/ /‫ ﻣ‬//‫ ٯـ)ﺎ( ﻟﻤﺎ )ٮٮـ(ﮟ ٮﺪ )ٮـ(ﻪ ]و[ )ٮـ(]ﺴ[)ﺮ( ]ﯼ[ ﻟﻠﻤ‬/ /{ }
88
4
‫ ]و ر[ ﺳﻠﻪ‬90/ / ‫ ﮐﺎ ں ]ﻋ[)ﺪ( و ا ﻟﻠﻪ )و( ﻣﻟٮـﮑ)ٮﻪ( و ا‬89[‫]ﮟ‬/ /{ } 5
‫]ﺮ[ )ٮـ(ﻞ )و( ﻣﮑٮـ)ﻞ( )ٯﺎ( ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻋ)ﺪ و( ﻟﻠﮑ)ٯﺮ( ٮـﮟ ۝ و‬/ /{ } 6
‫ٮٮٮ ﻣﺎ ٮـ)ﮑ(ٯـ]ﺮ[ ٮـﻬﮟ ا ﻻ ا ﻟٯﺴٯﻮ‬/ / [‫}{]ﻟ[ٯﺪ ا ٮﺮ ﻟ]ٮـ[ﺎ )ا( ]ٮٮ‬ 7
‫ﻣٮﮑﻢ‬ 92
/ / ‫ ﻋﻬ]ﺪ[ ا‬/ / ‫)ں ۝( ا ]و[ ﮐﻠﻤﺎ ﻋﻬﺪ‬
91
8
‫)ٮﻞ( ا ﮐٮﺮ ه]ﻢ[ ﻻ ]ٮـ[)ﻮ( ﻣ]ٮـﻮ[ ں )و( ﻟﻤﺎ ﺣﺎ )ه(]ﻢ[ ر )ﺳ(ﻮ ل‬ 9
‫]ﻣﺼ[)ﺪ( ٯ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ ]ٮٮـ[)ﺪ( ٯـ]ر ٮـ[ٯ ﻣﮟ )ا( ]ه[)ﻞ ا( ﻟﮑٮٮ‬ 10
‫)آ(]ٮـ[)ٮ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ )و( ر ا ﻃﻬﻮ ر هﻢ ﮐﺎ ٮﻬﻢ ﻻ ٮﻌﻠﻤﻮ‬ 11
‫ں )۝( و ا ]ٮـ[ٮﻌﻮ ا ا ﻣﺎ ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻠﻮ ا ا ﻟﺴٮـﻄ)ٮـ(ﮟ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻣﻠﮏ ﺳﻠٮـﻤﮟ‬ 12
‫و ﻣﺎ ﮐٯﺮ ]ﺳ[ﻠ)ٮـﻤ(ﮟ و ﻟﮑﮟ ا ﻟﺴ)ٮـ(ﻄٮـﮟ ﮐٯﺮ و ا ٮﻌﻠﻤﻮ‬ 13
85
) The illegible space before ḥā’ is too small for the grapheme ‫ﻣﺮ ﺣﺮ‬. Perhaps
the word is bi-munziḥihi, which is reported for Ibn Masʽūd’s codex here.
86
) The text seems to have wa-mā llāhu bi-ghāfilin ʽammā yaʽmalūna.
87
) There are two small, disc-shaped traces of ink above the tooth. The func-
tion of these dots is not clear.
88
) Another word is written slightly below the line, below wa-bushrā.This
word appears to be hudā. There is enough room before this word for wa, though
such a morpheme is not visible. It is not clear whether the scribe was adding the
putative hudā to wa-bushrā, or was trying to replace bushrā with hudā.
89
) The text might have an additional qul at the beginning of this verse.
90
) This word may be anbiyā’ihi.
91
) Since the last word in this line uses a second-person pronoun, the verb
here is also probably in the second person, i.e., ʽāhadtum.
92
) The text seems to differ from the standard reading, because a visible ver-
tical stroke in the second half of the illegible part cannot belong to the word
farīqun. Maybe the text is ṭā’ifatun instead of farīqun, in which case the vertical
line would belong to ṭā’.
‫ )ه(ﺮ و ٮ‬/ / [‫]ﺎ‬/ / ‫ﮟ‬/ /‫ ا )ﻟ(ﻤﻠ‬93/ /‫ںا‬ 14

94
/ / [‫)و( ﻣﺮ و ٮ و ﻣﺎ ٮـﻌﻠﻤ)ﮟ( ]ﻣ[ﮟ )ا ﺣﺪ( ﺣٮﺎ )ٮـ(]ٯﻮ‬ 15
‫]ٮـ[)ﻪ( ٯﻼ ٮـ)ﮑ(]ٯـ[)ﺮ( و ا ٯٮٮﻌﻠﻤﻮ ں ﻣٮﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﺎ‬/ / ‫ا ٮﻤﺎ ]ٮـ[)ﺤ(ﮟ‬
95
16
‫ﮟ ا ﻟﻤﺮ )و( ر و‬//[‫ و ﻣﺎ )ٮٯﺮ( ٯ ]ٮـ‬/ / 17
‫)ﺣﻪ( و ﻣﺎ ٮﺼﺮ ں ٮﻪ )ﻣ(ﮟ ا ﺣﺪ ا ﻻ ٮﺎ د ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬
96
18
(‫و ٮٮﻌﻠﻤﻮ ں ﻣﺎ ٮﺼﺮ ه]ﻢ[ و ﻻ ٮـﻨٯﻌﻬﻢ و ﻟٯﺪ )ﻋ(ﻠ]ﻤ[)ﻮ‬ 19
‫}{ا ﻟﻤﮟ ا ﺳٮﺮ ﯼ ٮﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ٯﯽ ا ﻻ ﺣﺮ ﻩ ﻣﮟ ﺣﻠﻖ‬ 20
98
‫ ٮﻪ ا ٮـ]ٯـﺴ[)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ ﻟﻮ ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ ا )ٮـ(]ﻌ[ﻠﻤ]ﻮ[ ں ۝‬/ / ‫]ﺎ[ ٮﺴﺮ‬/ / (‫} {)و‬
97
21
‫ و( ا ٮٯﻮ ا ﻟﻤ)ٮـ(ﻮ )ٮﻪ( )ﻣ(ﮟ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﺣٮﺮ‬99‫ )ا‬/ / ‫} {)و( ﻟﻮ ا‬ 22
‫} {ﻮ )آ(ﺎ ٮـ)ﻮ ا( ٮـ)ﻌ(ﻠﻤﻮ ں ]۝[ ٮﺎ )ٮـﻬ(ﺎ ا ﻟﺪ ٮـﮟ ا ﻣٮـﻮ ا ﻻ‬ 23
‫]ﺎ[ )و( ا ﺳﻤﻊ‬// ‫ﻮ ﻟ)ﻮ( ا ر ﻋٮﺎ و )ٯـ(ﻮ ﻟﻮ ا ا ٮﻄﺮ‬//{ } 24
‫} { ﻟﻠ]ﮑ[ٯـ)ر( ]ٮـ[ﮟ ﻋﺪ )ا( ٮ ا ﻟ)ٮـ(ﻢ ۝ ﻣﺎ ٮﻮ د ا‬ 25
93
) The illegible part is big enough to accommodate the standard text be-
tween yuʽallimūna and al-malakayn. However, the few remaining traces in this
part do not quite match the standard text. Specifically, the first word does not
seem to be al-nās (it might be al-yahūd).
94
) The traces do not match ‫ﻻ‬. The first letter is tooth-shaped (but may also
be rā’, or a lām the upper part of which is erased). The last letter may be mīm
since there is a small horizontal line at the end that resembles the tail of a mīm.
95
) The traces in the preceding illegible part are perplexing. The first letter
in this part is fā’, but it seems to be a later addition. It is written in a script
similar to that of the lower text, but appears in a slightly different color (with a
stronger green hue), and its shape suggests it has been inserted later. (Similar
additions appear in Folio 10 A (line 7) and Folio 11 B (line 14).) It is not clear if
the lower text initially had fitna or not. Traces of a consonant-distinguishing
mark for the letter tā’ (after fā’) suggest the text had fitna from the start, but
these traces too can be later additions (their color is not quite clear). One possi-
bility is that the text had miḥna because the traces after the inserted fā’ con-
form to ḥā’. Muqātil b. Sulaymān cites an exegetical tradition from al-Ḥasan al-
Baṣrī, who interprets fitna as miḥna (See Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b.
Sulaymān, ed. Aḥmad Farīd (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʽIlmiyya, 2003), 1:69).
96
) The word is probably yaḍurrāni.
97
) Only a small portion of the upper part of this putative alif is visible; the
rest is covered by an upper text alif. The amount of space before this putative
alif and the traces suggest that the text cannot be la-bi’sa mā. It might be a
connected bi’samā (‫)ٮٮﺴﻤﺎ‬.
98
) This verse separator has a special shape for marking the 100th verse.
99
) The illegible part preceding this alif is small, implying āmanū instead of
annahum āmanū.
‫‪44‬‬ ‫‪Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi‬‬
‫} {]ﺪ[ ]ٮـ[ﮟ ﮐٯﺮ و ]ا ﻣﮟ[ ا هﻞ ا ﻟﮑٮٮ ا و ا ﻟﻤﺴﺮ‬ ‫‪26‬‬

‫ﻣﮟ ﺣٮﺮ و ﻟﮑﮟ }{‬ ‫‪100‬‬
‫} {)ﮐﻮ( ں ا ں ٮٮﺮ ل ﻋﻠٮﮑﻢ ]ﻣ[)ﮟ( ا )ﻟ(‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫ر ﺣ)ﻤٮـ(ﻪ )ﻣ(‪] / /‬ٮﺴﺎ[ و )ا( ﻟﻠﻪ } {‬ ‫‪101‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫{ا ﻟﻠﻪ ‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫)‪Folio Stanford 2007 Recto (Q 2.191 – 2.196‬‬
‫و )ا( ٯـﺘﻠ]ﻮ[ هﻢ ‪) / /‬ٮـ(‪]/ /‬ٮـ[ﻤﻮ هﻢ و ا ﺣﺮ ﺣﻮ ‪{ } / /‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ﻣﮟ ﺣٮٮ ا ﺣﺮ ‪ / /‬ﮐﻢ و ا )ﻟ(‪)/ /‬ﻪ( ا } { ﺳﺪ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫هﻢ ﻋﻨﺪ ا ﻟﻤﺴﺤﺪ‬ ‫‪102‬‬
‫ﻣﮟ ا ﻟ)ٯـ(ٮﻞ و ﻻ ٮـٯـﺘﻠﻮ‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫)ا( ﻟﺤﺮ م ﺣ‪ / /‬ٮٯٮـ)ﻠﻮ( ﮐﻢ ٯﺎ ں ٯﺘﻠﻮ ﮐﻢ ٯﺎ ٯﺘﻠﻮ‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪103‬‬
‫)ه(ﻢ )د( ﻟﮏ ﺟﺰ ا ا ﻟﮑٯﺮ ٮﮟ ۝ ٯﺎ )ں( ا ﻧﺘ)ﻬ(ﻮ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫]ٯـ[)ﺎ( ]ں[ ا ‪//‬ﻠﻪ ﻋٯﻮر رﺣٮﻢ ۝ و ٯﺘﻠﻮ هﻢ ﺣﺘﺎ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫)ﻻ( ٮـﮑ)ﻮ( ‪) / /‬ٯـ(‪ / /‬و ٮﮑﻮ ں ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ﮐﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ﻟ]ﻠ[ﻪ ٯـ]ﺎ[ ں ا ٮﺘﻬﻮ ا ﻓﻼ ﻋﺪ و ں ا ﻻ ﻋﻠﯽ‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ا ﻟﺤﺮ م ﺑﺎ اﻟﺸﻬﺮ ا ﻟﺤﺮ‬ ‫‪104‬‬
‫ا ﻟﻈﻠ‪/ /‬ﮟ ۝ ا ﻟ)ﺴ(ﻬﺮ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫م و ‪ / /‬ﻟﺤﺮ ﻣﺖ ٯﺼﺺ و ﻣﻦ ا ﻋﺘﺪ ﯼ ﻋﻠٮﮑﻢ‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ٯﺎ ﻋٮـ‪) / /‬و( ﻋﻠٮﻪ ﺑﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﺎ ا ﻋﺘﺪ ﯼ ﻋﻠٮﮑﻢ ٮﻪ‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫و )ا( ﺗٯـ)ﻮ( ا ا ﻟﻠﻪ و ا ﻋﻠﻤﻮ ا ا ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ﻟﻤﺘٯـٮـ)ﮟ( ۝ و )ا( ﻧ)ٯـ(‪ / /‬ا ٯﯽ ﺳٮٮﻞ ا ﻟﻠﻪ و ﻻ‬ ‫‪105‬‬
‫)ﻣ(‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫ٮﻠٯﻮ ا ٮﺎ ٮﺪ ٮﮑﻢ ا ﻟﯽ ا ﻟﺘﻬﻠﮑﻪ و ا‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪108‬‬
‫۝ و ا ٮﻤﻮ‬ ‫‪107‬‬
‫ا ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺤٮ ا ﻟﻤﺤﺴٮﮟ‬ ‫‪106‬‬
‫ﺣ]ﺴ[)ﻨ(‪//‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ں ا ﺣﺼﺮ ]ٮـ[‪//‬‬ ‫‪109‬‬
‫ا ا ﻟﺤﺢ و ا ﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻩ ﻟﻠﻪ ا‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫ٯـﻤ‪ //‬ﺗٮﺴﺮ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻬﺪ ﯼ و ﻻ ﺗﺤﻠٯﻮ ا ﺣﺘﺎ ٮٮـﻠ)ﻊ(‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ا ﻟﻬﺪ ﯼ ﻣﺤﻠﻪ ٯﺎ ں ﮐﺎ ں ا ﺣﺪ ﻣٮـﮑ)ﻢ( ﻣﺮ‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫‪) This word may be allāh.‬‬
‫‪101‬‬
‫‪.‬ٮﺪﺣﻞ ٯـﻰ ‪) The few remaining traces in this part match‬‬
‫‪102‬‬
‫‪) Only one dot is visible above the first tooth.‬‬
‫‪103‬‬
‫‪) There does not seem to be an alif at the end of this word.‬‬
‫‪104‬‬
‫‪) Only one dot is visible above shīn.‬‬
‫‪105‬‬
‫‪) The small space after mīm suggests there is no alif here.‬‬
‫‪106‬‬
‫‪) The word aḥsinū does not seem to end with an alif.‬‬
‫‪107‬‬
‫‪) A tooth is missing.‬‬
‫‪108‬‬
‫‪) It cannot be ruled out that the scribe wrote aqīmū and then corrected it‬‬
‫‪to atimmū.‬‬
‫‪109‬‬
‫‪) There might have been a fā’ before alif.‬‬
‫ٮﻀﺎ او ٮﻪ ا ذ ﯼ ﻣﮟ ر )ا( ﺳﻪ ٯﺪ ٮﻪ‬ ‫‪19‬‬

‫ﻣﮟ ﺻٮﻢ ا و ﻧﺴﮏ ٯﺎ ذا ا ﻣﻨﺘﻢ ٯﻤﮟ ٮـﻤ)ٮـ(‪//‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫ٮﻌﻤﺮ ﺗﻪ ا ﻟﯽ ا ‪ / /‬ٯﻤﺎ ﺗٮﺴﺮ ﻣﮟ ا )ﻟ(‪) / /‬ﯼ(‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫ا ٮﻢ ٯﯽ ا ﻟﺤﺢ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪110‬‬
‫ٯﻤﮟ ﻟﻢ ٮﺤﺪ ٯﺼٮﻢ ﺛﻠﺘﻪ‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫ﺳﺒﻌﻪ ا ذ ا ر ﺣﻌﺘﻢ ﺗﻠﮏ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻩ ﮐﻤﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫} { د ﻟﮏ ﻟﻤﮟ ﻟﻢ ٮﮑﮟ ا هﻠﻪ ﺣﻀﺮ ﯼ ا ﻟﻤ‪{ }/ /‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪111‬‬
‫‪) /‬ا( ا )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ )ا( ‪) / /‬ا( } {‬ ‫} { ا ﻟﺤﺮ ‪ / /‬و ‪/‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫)‪Folio Stanford 2007 Verso (Q 2.197 – 2.205‬‬
‫} { )ا( ﺳﻬﺮ )ﻣﻌ(‪ / /‬ٮ‪ 112‬ٯـﻤ)ﮟ( ٯـ‪ //‬ص ]ٯـ[ٮـ]ﻬ[ﮟ ا ﻟﺤﺢ‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ٯـ)ﻠﺎ( ر } { ٯٮ ]ٯـ[‪]//‬ﻬ[ﮟ و ﻻ ٯﺴﻮ ‪) / /‬و( ﻻ ]ﺣﺪ[ ل ٯﯽ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ا )ﻟﺤ(ﺢ )و( ﻣﺎ ٮﻌﻤﻠﻮ ا ﻣﮟ ﺣٮﺮ ٮﻌﻠﻤﻪ ا ﻟﻠﻪ و ٮﺮ و د و ا‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ا ں ﺣٮﺮ ا ﻟﺮ د ا ﻟٮٯﻮ ﯼ و ا ٮٯﻮ‪ / /‬ٮﺎ و ﻻ ا ﻻ ﻟٮٮ ۝‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ﻟٮﺲ ﻋﻠٮﮑﻢ ﺣٮﺢ ا ں ٮٮٮﻌﻮ ا )ا( )ﻟ(ٯﺼﻞ ﻣﮟ )ر( ٮﮑﻢ ٯﺎ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫د ا ا ]ٯـ[ﺼٮﻢ ﻣﮟ ﻋﺮ ٯٮ ٯﺎ د ﮐﺮ و ا ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻋٮﺪ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪/‬و‬ ‫ا ﻟﻤﺴﻌﺮ ا ﻟﺤﺮ م و ا د ﮐﺮ و ﻩ ﮐﻤﺎ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ا ں ﮐٮٮﻢ ٯٮﻠﻪ ﻟﻤﮟ ا ﻟﺼﻠٮﮟ ۝ ٮﻢ ا ٯٮﺼﻮ ا ﻣﮟ ﺣٮٮ‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ا ٯﺺ ا ﻟٮﺎ س و ا ﺳٮﻌٯﺮ و ا ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ﻋٯﻮ ر ر ﺣٮﻢ ۝ و ا د ا ا ٯﺼٮٮﻢ ﻣٮﺴﮑﮑﻢ ٯﺎ‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫د ﮐﺮ و ا ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﮐﺪ ﮐﺮ ﮐﻢ ا ٮﺎ ﮐﻢ ا و ا ﺳﺪ‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ﻣﮟ ٮٯﻮل ر ٮٮﺎ ا ٮٮﺎ ٯﯽ )ه(]ﺪ[ )ﻩ(‬ ‫‪113‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫د ﮐﺮ ا و ‪/‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫]ﻟﺤٮﻮ ﻩ[ ا ﻟﺪ ٮٮﺎ و ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ٯﯽ ا ﻻ ﺣﺮ ﻩ ﻣﮟ ﺣﻠٯ ۝ و‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫ﻣٮﻬﻢ ﻣﮟ ٮٯﻮل ر ٮٮﺎ ا ٮٮﺎ ٯﯽ ا ﻟﺪ ٮٮﺎ و ا ﻻ ﺣﺮ ﻩ‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫و ٯـ)ٮـ(ﺎ ﻋﺪ ا ٮ ا ﻟٮﺎ ر ۝ ا و ﻟٮﮏ ﻟﻬﻢ ٮﺼٮٮ‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ﻣ‪//‬ﺎ ﮐﺴٮﻮ ں و ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﺳﺮ ٮﻊ ا ﻟﺤﺴﺎ ٮ ۝ و ا د‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪110‬‬
‫‪) The third letter is probably thā’, even though only two consonant-‬‬
‫‪distinguishing marks are visible above it.‬‬
‫‪111‬‬
‫‪) The text seems to be inna llāha instead of the standard wa-ʽlamū anna‬‬
‫‪llāha.‬‬
‫‪112‬‬
‫‪) This word might be maʽdūdāt.‬‬
‫‪113‬‬
‫‪) There is less room than expected for min al-nās. It is possible that the‬‬
‫‪text is minhum, although there is more space than is needed for this word.‬‬
‫ﮐﺮ ‪ / /‬ا ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٯﯽ ا ]ٮـ[ﻢ ﻣﻌﺪ و د ٮ ٯﻤﮟ ٮﻌﺤﻞ ٯﯽ‬ ‫‪17‬‬

‫ٮﻮ ﻣٮﮟ ٯﻼ ا ٮﻢ ﻋﻠٮﻪ و ﻣﮟ ٮﺎ ﺣﺮ ٯﻼ ا ٮﻢ ﻋﻠٮﻪ‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫‪ / /‬ا ٮٯﯽ و )ا( ٮٯﻮ ا ا ﻟﻠﻪ و ا ﻋﻠﻤﻮ ا ا ٮﮑﻢ ا‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫و ﻣﮟ ا ﻟٮﺎ س ﻣﮟ ٮﻌﺤٮﮏ ٯﻮ‬ ‫‪114‬‬
‫‪ / /‬ٮﺤﺴﺮ و ں ۝‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫]ﻟ[)ﻪ( ٯﯽ ]هﺪ ﻩ[ ا ﻟﺤٮﻮ ﻩ ا ﻟﺪ ٮٮﺎ و ٮﺴﻬﺪ ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫}{ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻣﺎ ٯﯽ ‪ / /‬و هﻮ ا ﻟﺪ ا ﻟﺤﺼٮـ]ﻢ[ ۝ و ا د ا‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫}{‬ ‫‪115‬‬
‫} {ﻮ ﻟﯽ ﺳﻌﯽ ٯﯽ ا ﻻ ر ص ﻟٮٯﺴﺪ ٯٮﻬﺎ و ٮﻬﻠﮏ‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫)‪Folio David 86/2003 Recto (Q 2.206 – 2.217‬‬
‫}{ ‪ //‬د )ا( ]ٯـ[‪//‬ل ﻟﻪ ا ٮٯ )ا( ]ﻟ[)ﻠﻪ( ا ﺣﺪ ‪ / /‬ا ‪)/ /‬ﺮ( ‪) //‬ٮﺎ ﻻ( ٮﻢ )ٯـﺤ(‪{ }/ /‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻟٮٮﺲ ا ]ﻟ[ﻤﻬ]ﺪ ۝[ و ﻣ)ﮟ ا( ‪)//‬ٮﺎ س( ﻣں ٮـ)ﺴ(ﺮ ﯼ ٮـٯـ)ﺴ(ﻪ )ا ٮـ(ٮﻌﺎ ‪) / /‬ﺻ(‪ / /‬ا ‪{} / /‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪) //‬ا( ﻟﻠﻪ ]ر[ و )ڡ( ٮﺎ ]ﻟ[)ﻌ(‪)//‬ﺪ( ۝ ٮـ)ﺎ( ]ٮـﻬ[ﺎ ا ﻟﺪ ]ٮـ[ﮟ ا ﻣٮـ)ﻮ( ا ا د ]ﺣ[ﻠ]ﻮ[ ا ]ٯﯽ[ ‪//‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪]//‬ﺴ[ﻠﻢ )آ(ﺎ ٯﻪ و ﻻ ٮـ]ٮـ[ٮـﻌو ا ﺣﻄﻮ ٮ ا ﻟﺴ)ٮـﻄ(ﮟ ا ٮﻪ ﻟﮑ]ﻢ[ ﻋﺪ )و(‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫]ﻣ[‪]//‬ٮـ[ﮟ ۝ ٯﺎ ں )ر( ﻟﻠﺘﻢ ]ﻣ[ﮟ ]ٮـ[ﻌﺪ )ﻣﺎ ﺣ(ﺎ ﮐﻢ ا ﻟ)ﻬد( ]ﯼ[ ٯﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﻮ ا )ا( ں ‪//‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫)ﻟ(‪//‬ﻪ )ﻋﺮ( ٮـ]ﺮ[ ﺣﮑٮﻢ ]۝[ هﻞ ٮـ‪//‬ﻄﺮ )و ں( ا ﻻ ا ں )ٮـ(ﺎ ٮـ)ٮـ(ﮑﻢ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٯـ]ﻰ[ ﻃ]ﻠ[‪//‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫)ﻣﮟ ا( ﻟﻌﻤ)ﻢ( و ا ﻟﻤﻠٮﮑﻪ و )ٯـ(ﺼﻰ ا ﻻ )ﻣ(ﺮ و ا ﻟﯽ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺮ )ﺣ(]ﻊ[ ا ﻻ ]ﻣ[‪//‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫]ر[ ۝ ﺳﻞ ٮٮﯽ ا ﺳﺮ ٮﻞ آ)ﻢ( ا ٮـ)ٮـ(ٮـﻬ]ﻢ[ ﻣﮟ ا ‪)//‬ﻪ( ‪)/ /‬ٮـ(ﻪ ]و[ ﻣﮟ ٮٮﺪ ل )ٮـﻌﻤ(ﻪ ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪)//‬ﮟ ٮـ(]ﻌ[ﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺎ ٮﻪ ٯﺎ ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﺳ)ﺪ( ٮﺪ ا ﻟﻌٯٮ ۝ ر ٮﮟ ﻟﻠ]ﺪ[ ‪//‬ﮟ آٯـ)ﺮ( ]و[‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫)ا( ا ﻟﺤ)ٮـ(ﻮ ﻩ ا )ﻟ(ﺪ )ٮـ(ٮﺎ و ٮـﺴﺤ]ﺮ[ )و( ں ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ا ﻣٮﻮ ا و ا ﻟﺪ )ٮﮟ( ا ]ٮٯـ[‪//‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫]ا[ )ٯـ(ﻮ ٯـﻬ]ﻢ[ ٮﻮ م ا ﻟ)ٯـ(ٮـ)ﻤﻪ( و ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺮ )ر( ٯ )ﻣ(ﮟ ٮـ)ﺴ(ﺎ ٮـ]ﻌ[ٮـ)ﺮ ﺣ(]ﺴٮ ۝[‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ﮐﺎ )ں( ا ﻟ)ٮـ(ﺎ س ا ﻣﻪ و ﺣﺪ ﻩ )ٯـ(ﺎ ‪) //‬ﺳ(ﻞ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ﻟٮـ]ٮـ[ٮـﮟ ﻣ]ٮـ[)ﺴ(ﺮ )ٮﮟ( و ﻣ)ٮـ(]ﺪ[‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫)ر ٮﮟ( و ا ٮﺮ ل ﻣﻌ)ﻬ(ﻢ ا ﻟﮑ]ٮـ[)ٮ( ٮﺎ ﻟﺤٯ ﻟ)ٮـﺤﮑﻤﻮ ا ٮـ(ٮﮟ ا ﻟٮﺎ )س ٯٮـ(]ﻤ[ﺎ )ا(‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫]ﺣٮـ[ﻠ)ٯﻮ( ا ٯٮﻪ و )ﻣ(ﺎ ا )ﺣٮـ(ﻠ)ڡ( ٯـ)ٮﻪ( ا ]ﻻ[ ا )ﻟ(‪ //‬ٮﮟ ا و ٮﻮ ﻩ )ﻣﮟ( ]ٮـ[‪//‬ﺪ‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫)ﻣ(]ﺎ ﺣ[ﺎ )ه(ﻢ ا ﻟٮـ)ٮـٮـ(ٮﺖ ٯﻬﺪ ﯼ ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ا ﻟﺪ ‪//‬ﮟ ا ]ﻣٮـ[ﻮ ا )ﻟ(ﻤ‪ //‬ا ﺣٮـ)ﻠٯـ(]ﻮ[‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫)ﻣ(‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪116‬‬
‫]ٯٮـ[)ﻪ( ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﺤٯ ٮﺎ )د( ٮﻪ و ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ]ٮـ[ﻬﺪ ﯼ ﻣﮟ ٮـ)ﺴ(ﺎ ا ﻟﯽ ﺻﺮ ط‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫)ا( )ﺣﺴ(ٮٮﻢ ا ں ٮﺪ ﺣﻠﻮ ا ا ﻟ)ﺤ(ٮﻪ و ﻟﻤﺎ )ٮـ(ﺎ ‪//‬ﮑم ﻣ)ٮـ(ﻞ ا ﻟ]ﺪ ٮﮟ[ )ﻣ(ﮟ‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫‪114‬‬
‫‪) This verse separator has a special shape for marking the 200th verse.‬‬
‫‪115‬‬
‫‪) The next line is only partially visible due to the fact that a horizontal‬‬
‫‪strip has been cut off from the bottom of the folio. The traces suggest that there‬‬
‫‪is inna before allāh unlike the standard text. The last word on this partially‬‬
‫‪visible line seems to be al-fasād, followed by an end-of-verse marker.‬‬
‫‪116‬‬
‫‪) This ṭā’ has a tail similar to that of a final ʽayn.‬‬
‫ ﻟﺮ ﻟ)ﻮ( ا ﺣﺘﯽ )ٮـٯـ(]ﻮ[ ل ا ﻟﺮ‬// ‫ ا و‬//‫]ٯٮـ[ﻠﮑ)ﻢ ﻣﺴٮﻬﻢ( ا ﻟٮﺴﺎ و ا ﻟﺼ‬ 18

{} / / ‫)ﺳ(]ﻮ[ ل و ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ا ﻣ)ٮـ(ﻮ ا ﻣﻌ)ﻪ( ﻣﺘﯽ ٮﺼﺮ ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ا ﻻ ا ں ٮـﺼ)ﺮ( ا‬ 19
/ / [‫ )ٮـ(]ٮ ۝[ ٮـ)ﺴﺎ( ﻟﻮ ٮﮏ )ﻣ(ﺎ )د( ا ٮـ)ٮٯٯـ(]ﻮ[ ں ٯﻞ ﻣﺎ ا ٮٯٯـ)ٮـ(]ﻢ[ )ﻣ(ﮟ )ﺣ(]ٮﺮ‬/ / 20
/ / (‫)ﺪ ٮﮟ( و ا ﻻ ٯـ)ﺮ( ]ٮٮـ[)ﮟ و( ا ﻟٮٮـ)ﻤ(ﻰ و )ا( ﻟ)ﻤ(ﺴ]ﮑ[)ٮـ(ﮟ و ا )ٮـ(ﮟ ا ﻟ)ﺴٮٮـ(ﻞ )و‬// 21
/ / (‫ ٯﺎ ں ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ ٮﻪ( ﻋﻠٮﻢ )۝( آٮـ]ٮ[ )ﻋ(ﻠٮﮑﻢ ا ﻟٯٮﻞ )و‬//[‫]ﻌ[ﻠو ا ﻣﮟ ﺣ]ٮـ‬/ / 22
{ }/ /[‫]ﻰ ا‬//[‫]ﮐﺮ[ ﻩ ﻟﮑﻢ )و ﻋﺴ(ﻰ ا ں ٮـ)ﮑﺮ( ه)ﻮ( ا )ﺳ(ٮﺎ و )هﻮ( ﺣٮﺮ ﻟ]ﮑﻢ و ﻋ‬ 23
{ }/ /‫ ٮـ‬// (‫ )ں‬/ /(‫ )ﺳ(ٮﺎ و ه)ﻮ( ]ﺳﺮ[ ﻟ]ﮑ[)ﻢ( )و( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮـ)ﻌ(ﻠ]ﻢ[ و ا ٮٮـ]ﻢ[ )ﻻ ٮـ‬/ / 24
{ }/ / (‫ٯـ)ﻞ‬ 117
(‫]ﻮ[ ٮﮏ )ﻋ(ﮟ ا ﻟ)ﺴ(ﻬﺮ ا ﻟﺤﺮ )م( ]و[ ﻋ)ﮟ( ٯٮﻞ ٯـ]ٮـ[)ﻪ‬// 25
{ }/ 119 118
/ (‫ )ا‬/ /(‫ و ا ﻟﻤ)ﺴﺤﺪ ا ﻟ‬- / / ‫ ]و[ )ﺻ(]ﺪ[ ﻋﮟ‬/ / { } 26
Folio David 86/2003 Verso (Q 2.217 – 2.223)
‫ )ﻟﻮ( ں‬/ / ‫]ٯٮـ[ﻞ ]و[ ﻻ‬// (‫ ﻣﮟ )ا‬/ / ‫ ]ا[ )ﻟ(]ٯٮٮـﻪ[ ا‬/ / ‫ﻋٮﺪ ا‬120 [‫} { ]ﮐٮﺮ‬ 1
124
(‫)ﮟ‬ /
123
/ 122
(‫ )ں‬//[‫ا ں ا )ﺳ(ٮـﻄ]ﻌ‬ 121
//‫ )د( ]و[ آ‬/ / ‫ٮـ)ٯـ(]ٮـ[ﻠ)ﻮ( ٮﮑﻢ )ﺣٮـ(ﻰ‬ 2
117
) Traces of a word are visible above fīhi. Its first letter is fā’/qāf and its
second letter is a medial lām. It is not clear what this word is, or whether it be-
longs to the present or the previous line.
118
) The space here is not sufficient for sabīl allāh.The traces match sabīlihi.
119
) The phrase wa-kufrun bihi is not present immediately before al-masjid.
Either it is missing or it (or a smaller phrase such as wa-kufrun) is written at the
beginning of the line, before wa-ṣaddun.
120
) There are traces before ʽayn that resemble an isolated rā’ or an initial
mīm. The traces might belong to a word that the scribe had initially written
here.
121
) The initial kāf might be preceded by a tooth.
122
) Traces of an alif are visible over nūn. The alif has a darker, green hue
than the other characters. It is possible that the nūn, a likely scribal error, was
corrected later.
123
) A vertical stroke (possibly belonging to an alif) is visible in the middle
of the illegible part preceding nūn, suggesting the text may differ from the stan-
dard reading.
124
) In criticizing Fedeli, Sadeghi previously assumed that this nūn belongs
to the word ʽan in ʽan dīnihi. However, this is not certain. Nor is there any reason
for believing that ʽan dīnihi is missing from the text as Fedeli assumed.The text
is largely illegible, and it is difficult to conclude much. See Sadeg hi and
B ergmann,“The Codex,” 363.
‫‪ 125/‬ا و ﻟ‪]//‬ﮏ[ ا ﺻﺤٮ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫ا ]ﻟ[ٮﺎ ر هﻢ )ٯـ(]ٮـ[)ﻬ(ﺎ ﺣﻠ)ﺪ و( ں )۝( ا ں ا ﻟﺪ )ٮـ(ﮟ )ا ﻣٮﻮ( ا و هﺤﺮ‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺣ]ﻮ[ ں ر ]ﺣﻤ[ﻪ )ا( ]ﻟ[ﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪126‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫)و( ‪) //‬ٯﯽ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫و ا )ﻟ(ﻠ)ﻪ( ﻋ]ٯﻮ[ )ر( ]ر[ ﺣٮﻢ ‪)/ /‬ﺴ(ﺎ ﻟﻮ )ٮﮏ ﻋ(ﮟ )ا( ﻟ)ﺤﻤ(ﺮ )و( ا‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫)ﻟ(ﻤ)ٮـ(ﺴﺮ ٯﻞ ٯٮﻬﻤﺎ ا ٮﻢ )آ(ٮـ‪ / /‬و ﻣ)ٮـ(ٯـ)ﻊ( ﻟﻠٮـ‪ //‬س )و( ا ٮـ‪//‬ﻬﻤﺎ‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫)ا( ﮐٮﺮ ﻣﮟ )ٮـٯـ(ﻌﻬ‪//‬ﺎ و ]ٮـ[ﺴﺎ ﻟ)ﻮ( ٮـ)ﮏ( ﻣ)ﺪ( ا ٮٮـٯٯـ‪ //‬ں )ٯـ(ﻞ ا ﻟﻌ]ٯـ[} {‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫]ﻟ[ﻌﻠ]ﮑ[ﻢ ‪)//‬ٮـ(ٯـﮑ]ﺮ[ و ں )۝( ٯﯽ‬ ‫‪127‬‬
‫آ‪) //‬ﻟﮏ( ٮٮٮﮟ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻟﮑ)ﻢ( ا ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫)ا( ﻟ)ﺪ( ٮٮﺎ و ا ﻻ )ﺣ(‪) //‬ﻩ( ]و[ ٮﺴﺎ ﻟ)ﻮ ٮﮏ( ﻋﮟ ا ﻟ)ٮٮـ(‪)//‬ﻰ( ٯـ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫)ا( ﺻﻠ)ﺢ( ﻟﻬ)ﻢ( ﺣٮﺮ و ا ]ں[ ﺗﺤﻠﻄﻮ هﻢ ٯـ)ﺎ ﺣﻮ( ‪//‬ﻬﻢ‪ 128‬و ا )ﻟﻠ(} {‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫)ٮـﻌ(ﻠﻢ ا ﻟ)ﻤ(ٯـﺴ)ﺪ( ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻤﺼﻠ)ﺢ( و ﻟ)ﻮ( ﺳﺎ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻻ‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ﻋٮٮـ)ﮑﻢ( ا ں ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻋﺮ ٮﺮ ﺣ]ﮑ[‪]//‬ﻢ[ ۝ و ﻻ ٮـ)ٮـ(]ﮑ[)ﺤﻮ( ا ا ﻟ)ﻤ(]ﺴﺮ[‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪) / /‬ﺣ(ٮـ)ﻰ( ٮﻮ ﻣﮟ )و( ﻻ ﻣﻪ ﻣ)ﻮ( ]ﻣ[ٮﻪ )ﺣ(ٮﺮ ﻣﮟ ﻣ)ﺴ(ﺮ ﮐﻪ و‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪)//‬ﻮ( ا ﻋﺤ)ٮٮـ(ﮑﻢ و ﻻ ٮـ)ٮـ(ﮑﺤﻮ ا ا ﻟﻤﺴﺮ )آ(ٮﮟ )ﺣٮﯽ( ٮﻮ ﻣٮﻮ‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪ //‬و ﻟﻌٮﺪ ﻣ)ﻮ( ﻣﮟ ﺣٮـ)ر( ﻣ)ﮟ( ﻣﺴﺮ ﮎ و ﻟ)ﻮ( ا ﻋ‪/ /‬ﮑﻢ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪ / /‬ﻟٮﮏ ٮﺪ ]ﻋ[)ﻮ( ں ا ﻟﯽ ا ﻟٮﺎ ر و ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ٮﺪ ﻋ]ﻮ[ )ا(‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫‪129‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪]//‬ﻰ[ ا ﻟﺤٮﻪ و ا ﻟﻤ]ﻌ[ٯﺮ ﻩ )و( ]ٮـ[ٮـ)ٮـ(ﮟ ا ]ٮـ[ٮﻪ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫)ٮـﺴ(ﺎ ﻟﻮ ]ٮـ[ﮏ ﻋﮟ ا ﻟﻤﺤٮﺺ ٯﻞ )هﻮ( ا )د( ﯼ ]ٯـ[)ﻠﺎ(‬ ‫‪130‬‬
‫‪ / /‬و ں ]۝[‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫} { ‪) / /‬ٮﻮ( ا ا ﻟ)ٮـﺴ(ﺎ ٯﯽ )ﻣﺤٮـﺼ(‪)//‬ﮟ ﺣٮـ(ﻰ ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻄ)ﻬ(]ﺮ[ ں ٯﺎ د ا )ا( ﻃﻬﺮ‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫} { ‪)//‬ﺎ( ٮـ)ﻮ( هﮟ ﻣﮟ ﺣٮٮ ا )ﻣ(ﺮ آ)ﻢ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮـ)ﺤ(ٮ ا‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫‪] /‬و[ ‪]/ /‬ٮ[ )ا ﻟ(]ﻤ[‪]//‬ﻄﻬﺮ[ ‪] / /‬ٮـﺴ[)ﺎ ﮐﻢ( ]ﺣﺮ[ )ٮ ﻟ(]ﮑﻢ[ ‪{ } / /‬‬ ‫} {‪/‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪125‬‬
‫‪) There is not enough room for the standard text between this point and‬‬
‫‪istaṭāʽū in the previous line.‬‬
‫‪126‬‬
‫‪) The verb jāhadū is either absent or written after fī sabīli llāhi.‬‬
‫‪127‬‬
‫‪.The text may be āyātihi.‬ﻻ ٮٮ ‪) There is perhaps insufficient room for‬‬
‫‪128‬‬
‫‪) The morpheme hum has a dark greenish hue similar to the alif on line 2.‬‬
‫‪129‬‬
‫‪) The traces and insufficient space suggest that the word li-l-nās is miss-‬‬
‫‪ing.‬‬
‫‪130‬‬
‫‪) It is not clear whether this verse starts with wa-.‬‬
Folio Bonhams 2000 Recto (Q 5.41 – 5.48)

{ } // (‫}{ ٮﻄﻬﺮ ٯﻠﻮ ٮﻬﻢ ﻟﻬ)ﻢ ٯﯽ( ا ﻟﺪ ٮٮـ)ﺎ( ﺣﺮ )ﯼ( و )ٯـ(ﻰ )ا‬ 1
{}(‫ ﻋﻄٮﻢ )۝( ٮـﺴ)ﻤ(ﻌﻮ ں ﻟﻠﮑ)ﺪ( ٮ ا آ]ﻠٮـ[)ﮟ‬/ / (‫ﻩ ﻟﻬﻢ ﻋﺪ )ا‬ 2
{} ‫ )ٮﻌﺮ( ص ﻋٮﻬﻢ‬/ / ‫ٮٮـﻬ]ﻢ[ ا )و( ا ﻋﺮ )ص( و ا‬// (‫ٯﺎ ﺣﮑ)ﻢ‬ 131
‫ﻟﻠﺴ)ﺤ(ﺮ‬ 3
{}/ /‫ ٮﺎ ﻟ‬//[‫]ﻬ‬/ / ‫]ﻤٮ[ ٯﺎ‬/ / (‫ﺎ و ا )ں‬//‫ﻻ ٮـ]ﺼ[ﺮ و ]ﮎ[ ﺳ‬ 4
{} ‫ )ٮﮏ( و‬/ /[‫ ٮـﺤ]ﮑ‬/ /(‫ )آٮـ‬/ / (‫)ﮟ‬/ / ‫ا ں ا )ﻟ(ﻠ]ﻪ[ ٮﺤٮ ا‬ 5
{}/ /‫ )ﻋ(]ٮﺪ هﻢ[ ٮـ)ﻢ( ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻮ ﻟ]ﻮ[ ں ﻣ‬/ / [‫ﻬﺎ ﺣﮑ)ﻢ( ]ا‬//[‫ﻟٮﻮ ر ٮﻪ ]ٯـ‬ 6
{} (‫ ﻟ]ٮﺎ[ ا ﻟ]ٮﻮ[ ر ٮـ)ﻪ‬/ / ‫۝ )و( ا‬ 132
/ /‫ﻤ‬/ / [‫د ﻟﮏ ٯـﻤ]ﺎ[ )ا و ﻟ(]ٮﮏ‬ 7
{} 133
/ / ‫)ﻮ( ر )و( ]ه[)ﺪ( ]ﯼ ٯٮـﺤ[ﮑﻢ ]ٮـ[)ﻬﺎ ا( ﻻ )ٮـ(ٮٮﺎ )ا( ﻟﺪ ]ٮﮟ[ ا‬// (‫ٯٮـ)ﻬﺎ‬ 8
{} / /‫ا و ا ﻟﺪ ]ٮـ[)ﮟ( هﺪ )و ا( ٮـﺤﮑ]ﻤ[ﻮ )ں( ٮـ]ﻤ[ﺎ ٮﺮ ل ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ٯٮـﻬ‬ 9
{} [‫]ٮـﻤ[ﺎ ا ﺳٮـﺤٯـﻄ)ﻮ( ا ﻣ]ﮟ[ آ]ٮٮ‬ 135
// ‫ا ﻻ‬ 134
‫ﻮ ں و‬/ / (‫ٮـﺤﮑ]ﻢ[ ٮﻬﺎ )ا( ﻟ)ﺮ‬ 10
{} / / [‫)ﻪ( ﺳﻬﺪ ا ٯﻼ ٮﺤﺴﻮ هﻢ و )ا ﺣ(]ﺴﻮ‬//(‫ ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ )ا ﻋﻠ‬/ / (‫ﻟﻠ)ﻪ‬ 11
/ /[‫ ]و ا[ ٮﺎ ٮٮٮﯽ ٮـﻤٮـ)ﺎ( ٯﻠٮﻼ و ﻣﮟ ﻟﻢ ٮﺤﮑﻢ ]ٮـﻤ‬//‫و ﻻ ٮـ)ﺴ(ٮـ‬ 12
[‫]ٮٮٮﺎ‬/ / (‫ا ٮﺮ )ل( ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ )ٯـ(ﺎ و ﻟٮﮏ هﻢ ا ﻟﮑ)ٯـ(]ﺮ[ و ں ۝ )و‬ 13
/ /(‫)ﻋ(ﻠﻰ ٮـ)ٮـ(ﻰ ا ﺳﺮ ٮﻞ ٯٮﻬﺎ ا ں ا )ﻟ(]ٮـٯـ[)ﺲ( ٮﺎ ﻟ)ٮـ‬ 14
/ / (‫ﻟﻌٮـ)ﮟ( ]ٮـ[ﺎ ﻟﻌٮﮟ و ا ﻻ ٮـ)ڡ( ٮـ)ﻠﺎ( ٮـ]ڡ[ و )ا‬ 15
/ / ‫)د( ]ں[ و ا ﻟ]ﺴ[ﮟ )ٮـ(ﺎ ﻟ)ﺴ(ﮟ )و( ا ﻟﺤﺮ و‬ 136
‫ٮﻼ‬ 16
/ /[‫ )ا ں( ]ٮـ[)ﺼﺪ ٯـ(ﻮ ا ٮﻬﺎ ]ٯـ‬/ 137
/ 17
/ / ‫)ا( ﻟﻠﻪ‬ 138
‫ ]ٮـﻤ[ﺎ ا ٮﺮ ل‬/ / [‫ ﻟ]ﻢ‬/ /[‫ﻟﮑﻢ و ]ﻣ‬ 18
131
) The last letter might be a final tā’ instead.
132
) The letter before mīm may be lām or a tooth-shaped letter. The letter af-
ter mīm may be wāw, fā’, qāf, or even dāl. A vertical stroke is visible next. If it
belongs to a letter of this word, then the word cannot be bi-l-mu’minīn. However,
if it is a smudge or a corrected letter, then the word may be bi-l-mu’minīn.
133
) The first letter in the illegible part might be hā’, in which case the word
may be ihtadaw instead of aslamū.
134
) This wāw has a slightly darker hue.
135
) There is less room than would normally be expected for a grapheme such as
‫ﺣٮﺮ‬.
136
) The free space here is unusually large.
137
) Considering the available space after the word jurūḥ on the previous line,
there seems to be more room here than would be required for the standard text.
138
) Apart from the traces of ink belonging to anzala, there are other traces.
There might be a wāw slightly above the second grapheme. Perhaps the scribe
had initially written a different word here, such as awḥā. Alternatively, the extra
traces may be smudges.
‫‪/‬‬ ‫هﻢ ا ﻟــ)ﻄ(ﻠﻤ)ﻮ(‪ 139‬ں ۝ و ٯٯٮٮﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ ا ٮﺮ هﻢ ]ٮـ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬

‫ا ‪] / /‬ﻣ[‪)/ /‬ﻢ( ‪]/ /‬ﺼ[ﺪ ٯﺎ ﻟﻤﺎ ٮٮﮟ ٮﺪ ٮﻪ ﻣ)ﮟ ا( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫ٮﻪ )و ا( ‪ / /‬ا ﻻ ٮـﺤٮـ)ﻞ( ٯٮﻪ هﺪ ﯼ و )ٮـ(‪] //‬ر[ } { ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫ﻣ)ﺼ(‪] / /‬ٯﺎ[ ﻟﻤﺎ )ا( ٮﺮ )ﻟٮـ(ﺎ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟٮﻮ ر ]ٮﻪ[ } {‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪140‬‬
‫و ﻣﻮ ﻋﻄﻪ ﻟٯﻮ )م( ٮﻮ )ﻣ(ٮﻮ ں ‪] / /‬و[ )ﻟ(ٮـﺤﮑ} {‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫ا ﻻ )ٮـ(ﺤٮـﻞ ٮﻤﺎ ا ٮﺮ ل ﻋ)ﻠٮـﻬﻢ( ٯـ]ٮﻪ[ )و( ]ﻣﮟ[ ﻟ]ﻢ[} {‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫ٮـ)ﺤﮑﻢ( ٮﻤﺎ ]ا[ )ٮـ(ﺮ )ل( ا ﻟﻠﻪ )ٯﺎ و( ]ﻟٮـ[)ﮏ( ]ه[‪{ } / /‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪) /‬و ا( ]ٮﺮ ﻟ[‪] / /‬ﻟٮﮏ[ ‪{ } / /‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬‫‪141‬‬
‫} {‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫)‪Folio Bonhams 2000 Verso (Q 5.48 – 5.54‬‬

‫‪142‬‬
‫‪]/‬ﮟ[ ‪]/ /‬ﺪ[ ‪] / /‬ﻣ[ﮟ ا‬ ‫‪]/‬ٯ[ ‪/‬‬ ‫} {‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫} {‪] / /‬و ﻣﻬ[ٮـ]ﻤٮـ[ﺎ ]ﻋ[)ﻠٮـﻬﻢ( ٯﺎ )ﺣ(]ﮑﻢ[ ٮٮـ]ٮـﻬ[)ﻢ ٮـﻤ(ﺎ ا ٮﺮ ل‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫} {‪ / /‬ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ )و ﻻ( ]ٮٮٮـ[)ﻊ( ا ه)ﻮ ه(]ﻢ ﻋ[)ﮟ( ﻣﺎ ﺣﺎ ﮎ ﻣﮟ ا‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫} {‪) / /‬و( ]ﻟﮑ[)ﻞ( ]ﻣٮﻬﻢ[ ﺣﻌﻠٮﺎ ]ﺳﺮ ٮﻌﻪ[ )و( ]ﻣٮـﻬ[)ﺤﺎ( ]و[ )ﻟ(ﻮ )ﺳ(ﺎ ا‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫} {‪) / /‬ﻟﺤﻌﻠ(]ﮑﻢ[ ا )ﻣﻪ و( ﺣﺪ )ﻩ( و )ﻟ(]ﮑ[)ﮟ( ‪]/ /‬ﻮ[ ﮐﻢ ٯٮـ)ﻤ(ﺎ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫} {‪) / /‬ٮٮـ(]ﮑﻢ[ )ٯـ(]ﺎ ﺳ[‪]//‬ٮـ[)ٯﻮ( ا )ا ﻟﺤٮﺮ ٮ ٮﻢ( ا )ﻟﯽ( ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻣ)ﺮ(‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫}{‪]/ /‬ﮑﻢ ﺣ[)ﻤ(‪]/ /‬ﺎ[ )ٯـ(]ٮٮٮﮑﻢ ٮـ[)ﻤ(]ﺎ آ[‪]//‬ٮﻢ[ ٯٮـ]ﻪ[ )ٮـﺤٮـﻠ(]ٯﻮ[ ں ۝ ]ٯـ[)ﺎ(‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫]ٮـٮـ[)ٮـ(]ﻬﻢ ٮﻤﺎ[ ‪] / /‬ٮﺮ[ ل ا )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ )و ﻻ( ]ٮٮٮـ[)ﻊ( ا ]هﻮ[ هﻢ‬ ‫‪143‬‬
‫}{‪]//‬ﮑﻢ[‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫}{‪] //‬ا ﺣ[)ﺪ( ]ر[ ا )ں( ]ٮٯٮٮﻮ[ ﮎ )ﻋ(ﮟ ٮـ]ﻌﺺ[ ﻣﺎ ا )و( ﺣﯽ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫}{ ]ا[ )ﻟﻠﻪ( ا ﻟ)ٮﮏ ٯﺎ ں( ]ٮﻮ[ )ﻟ(]ﻮ[ ا )ٯـ(ﺎ ٮﻤﺎ )ٮﺮ ٮﺪ(‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫}{‪/ /‬ﻠ]ﻪ[ )ﻟ(]ٮﺼٮٮﻬﻢ ٮٮـ[ﻌ]ﺺ د ٮﻮ[ )ٮـﻬ(]ﻢ و[ ا )ں( آ]ٮٮﺮ[ ا ﻣﮟ‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪) / /‬ﻟ(]ٮﺎ[ )س( ]ﻟٯـ[‪]/ /‬ﻮ ں[ ۝ )ا( ‪]/ /‬ﻢ[ )ا ﻟﺤ(]ﻬﻠ[‪] / /‬ٮٮـ[)ﻌﻮ ں و ﻣ(‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪] /‬ﺣﮑﻤﺎ[ )ﻣﮟ( ا )ﻟﻠﻪ ﻟ(]ٯﻮ م[ )ٮﻮ( ]ﻣٮﻮ[ ں ۝ ]ٮـ[)ﺎ( ٮـ)ﻬ(ﺎ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪139‬‬
‫‪) The distance between the initial lām and the ẓā’ is unusually long.‬‬
‫‪140‬‬
‫‪) This missing part is too small for the word ahl, and the word seems to be‬‬
‫‪missing.‬‬
‫‪141‬‬
‫‪) This part at the beginning of the line appears empty, perhaps because‬‬
‫‪writing here would have interfered with the previous line.‬‬
‫‪142‬‬
‫‪) A portion of the upper part of the text on this line is physically missing,‬‬
‫‪since a strip has been cut off from the top of the folio.‬‬
‫‪143‬‬
‫‪) The traces and amount of space suggest fa-ḥkum instead of wa-ani‬‬
‫‪ḥkum.‬‬
‫‪) /‬ا ﻣ(]ٮﻮ[ )ا( ﻻ ]ٮٮﺤﺪ و[ ا ا )ﻟ(‪]//‬ﻬ[‪ //‬د )و( ا )ﻟ(]ٮـﺼﺮ ﯼ[‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪) / /‬ﻟ(‪//‬ﺎ ‪]/ /‬ﺼ[ﮑ]ﻢ[ )ا و ﻟ(ٮﺎ ‪]/ /‬ﺺ[ )و( ]ﻣ[)ﮟ ٮﻮ ﻟ(]ٮـﻬ[‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪) /‬ﻣ(‪)/ /‬ﻢ( ا ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻻ )ٮـﻬ(]ﺪ[ ﯼ ا ﻟ]ٯـ[ﻮ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪ /‬۝ ]ٯـ[‪)//‬ﺮ( ﯼ ا ]ﻟﺪ[ )ٮﮟ( ٯﯽ ‪)/ /‬ﻠﻮ ٮـﻬ(ﻢ )ﻣﺮ ص ٮـ(ﺴ]ﺮ[‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫‪] /‬ٮٯﻮ[ )ﻟﻮ( ]ں ٮـ[)ﺤﺴﻰ ا ں( ٮـ]ﺼ[ٮٮٮﺎ د ‪] / /‬ﻩ[ )ٯﻌﺴﯽ(‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫]ٮﺎ[ ‪) / /‬ا( ]و ا ﻣﺮ[ )ﻣ(ﮟ ]ﻋ[)ٮﺪ ﻩ ٯـٮـ(]ﺼ[ٮـﺤ)ﻮ(‬ ‫‪145‬‬
‫)ٮﺎ( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪144‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫‪)// { }/ /‬ﺎ ا( ‪) / /‬ا ٯـ(‪) / /‬ا( ‪//‬ٯـ]ﺴﻬﻢ[ )ٮـ(]ﺪ[ )ﻣٮﮟ( ۝ )و ٮـ(]ٯﻮ[‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫} {ﺪ )ٮﮟ( ا ]ﻣٮـ[)ﻮ( ا )ا( ‪] / /‬ﻻ[ ا )ﻟ(‪/ /‬ﮟ ا )ٯـ(]ﺴﻤ[ﻮ ا‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫‪ /‬ا )ٮـﻤ(‪)/ /‬ﻬﻢ( ا ٮﻬﻢ ﻟ)ﻤ(]ﻌﮑﻢ ﺣ[‪)/ /‬ﻄ(ٮ ا‬ ‫} {‪/‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫} {‪] / /‬ٯـ[)ﺎ ﺻ(‪)/ /‬ﻮ( ا )ﺣﺴﺮ( ]ٮـ[ﮟ )۝( ]ٮـ[ﺎ )ٮﻬﺎ( ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ا )ﻣٮﻮ(‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫} { )ﻣﮟ( ‪] / /‬ٮﺪ د[ )ﻣٮـ(]ﮑﻢ[ ﻋﮟ )د( ]ٮٮﻪ[ ٯﺴٮٮﯽ ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ(‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫)ﻋﻠﯽ( ا )ﻟ(‪]//‬ﻮ[‬ ‫‪146‬‬
‫} { ]ٮـٯـ[)ﻮ( ]م[ )ٮـﺤ(]ٮـﻬ[‪) / /‬و( ]ٮﺤٮﻮ[ )ٮﻪ( ‪)/ /‬ﺎ(‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫)ﻋﻠﯽ( ا ﻟﮑ]ٯﺮ[ )ٮـﺤ(]ﻬﺪ[ )و ں(‬ ‫‪147‬‬
‫]ﻣ[‪]/ /‬ٮﮟ ﻋﻠﻄ[ﺎ‬ ‫}{‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫ٯﯽ ]ﺳٮٮـ[)ﻞ ا ﻟ(]ﻠﻪ و ﻻ[‬ ‫}{‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫)‪Folio 4 A (Q 11.105 – 11.112‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{‪]//‬ﻢ[} {‪ / /‬ا )ﻻ( ﻣﮟ )ا(‪}148‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{‬ ‫{ ا ‪] / /{ }//‬ﺳ[‪]//‬ﻮ[ )ا(}‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪] /‬د[ }‬ ‫{]ﮟ[‪/{} 149‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{]ٮـ[ﮏ )ا( ‪} / /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ )ا( ]ﻟﺤ[‪] / /‬ﺣﻠ[ﺪ ‪} / /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪] /‬ﻣ[‪] //‬ﺳﺎ[ }‬ ‫‪] /‬ص[ ‪/‬‬ ‫{‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ ‪) / /‬ﻣﺮ( ‪] / /‬ﻣ[)ﻤﺎ ٮـ(]ﻌٮـﺪ[ }‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{‪]/ /‬ﺪ[ ‪]//{}//‬ﺎ[ )ه(‪] //‬ﻣﮟ[ ٯٮـ)ﻞ( }‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪144‬‬
‫‪) There is not enough room for allāhu an. Perhaps the scribe forgot to‬‬
‫‪write an.‬‬
‫‪145‬‬
‫‪.‬ٮﯽ ‪) The traces here do not quite match‬‬
‫‪146‬‬
‫‪) This word may be ruḥamā’.‬‬
‫‪147‬‬
‫‪) Before the final alif, two vertical strokes are visible that may belong to a‬‬
‫‪lām and a ẓā’.‬‬
‫‪148‬‬
‫‪) The text may be man adhina lahu instead of bi-idhnihi.‬‬
‫‪149‬‬
‫‪) This letter may be the nūn of the word khālidīn.‬‬
{ }[‫ ]ٮٮـ‬/ / [‫{ﻟ]ٯﺪ‬ } 9

{ } ‫ ]ﺳٮـ[ٯٮ‬//[‫]ﻠﻤ‬//{ } 10
{ }/ / [‫ ]و ا ں‬/ /{ } 11
{ }/ / [‫{]ﻪ‬ } 12
{ } (‫ )ا‬/ /[‫ ]ٮـ‬/ / 150
(‫)ﻮ‬/ /{ } 13
Folio 4 B (Q 11.120–123 – 8.1–3)
{ } (‫ ٮﻪ‬151‫{ٮٮـ)ٮ‬ } 1
{ } 152‫{ ﻣﻮ ﻋﻄﻪ و د‬ } 2
{ }‫{ ں ا )ﻋ(]ﻤ[ﻠ]ﻮ[ ا‬ } 3
{ } / /[‫ )ﻣﻌ(]ﮑ‬/ / (‫{ )ا‬
153
} 4
{ } ‫ )ﻻ( ر ص‬// ‫{ و‬ } 5
{ }‫ آ‬/ /{} ‫ و‬/ / (‫{)ﺪ‬ } 6
{ }(‫ﻤ]ﻪ ﺳﻮ ر[ )ﻩ ا‬//‫{ هﺪ )ﻩ( ﺣ‬ } 7
{ }/ / (‫{~~ ٮـ)ﺴ(]ﻢ[ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ﻟ)ﺮ‬ } 8
{ }‫{ ٮٯـ)ﻞ( ٯـ)ﻞ( ا ﻻ ]ٮٯـ[)ﻞ( ﻟ‬ } 9
{ }‫{ا}{اٮ‬ } 10
{ } (‫{]ﻮ[ )ﻣٮـ(ٮﮟ ]۝[ ا ٮـﻤ)ﺎ‬ } 11
{ }[‫{ )ﻟﻠﻪ( ٯـ)ﺮ( ٯـ]ٮ‬ } 12
{ }154 ‫ﻬﻢ ا ٮـ)ٮٮـ(ﺎ ر د‬//{ } 13
150
) There are traces before wāw that resemble a tooth, which would not
match the standard text. Otherwise, this may be the conjunctive wāw preceding
lā taṭghaw.
151
) This grapheme may belong to the word nuthabbitu.
152
) A horizontal line is visible here beneath dāl. This line could belong to a
final yā’.
153
) The text may be innā maʽakum muntaẓirūn.
154
) The upper section of a vertical stroke is visible the lower part of which is
in the physically missing part. This stroke probably belongs to an alif. There are
two possibilities: First, there may be another alif after āyātinā (there is enough
space for such an alif), in which case the word here may be izdādū. Second, a
tooth may come before the alif preceding the missing part, in which case the
word could be zidnāhum.
{ }[‫ﻠﻮ ں ۝ ا ﻟﺪ ]ٮـ‬//{ } 14
{ }‫و ﻣﻤﺎ ر ر ٯٮـﻬ‬ 155
//{ } 15
Folio 5 A (Q 8.73–75 – 9.1–7)
{ } ‫ٯﯽ ا ﻻ ر )ص( ٯـﺴ]ﺪ[ ا ﮐٮٮﺮ ۝ و ا ]ﻟﺪ[ ٮـﮟ ا )ﻣٮﻮ( ا و‬ 1

{ }[‫ا و ﺣﻬ)ﺪ( و ا ٯﯽ ﺳٮٮـ)ﻞ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺎ ]ﻣﻮ[ ﻟﻬﻢ و ا ]ٮـ[ٯـﺴ]ﻬ‬ 2
{ }/ / [‫ ﻟٮﮏ هﻢ ا ﻟﻤﻮ ﻣٮٮـﮟ ﺣ)ٯـ(]ﺎ[ ﻟﻬﻢ ﻣ]ﻌ[)ٯـ(]ﺮ[ ﻩ ]و‬/ / ‫و ا‬ 3
{ } [‫ و ا ]و‬/ /(‫ ٮـﮟ ا ﻣٮﻮ ا ﻣﮟ ٮﻌﺪ و )ه‬/ /{ }// ‫آ)ﺮ( ٮﻢ ۝‬ 4
‫ ﺣﻢ‬// ‫ﺣﻬ)ﺪ( ]و[ ا ﻣﻌﮑﻢ ٯـ)ﺎ( و ﻟٮﮏ ﻣٮﮑﻢ و او ﻟﯽ ا ﻻ‬ 5
‫ٮـﻌﺼ)ﻬ(ﻢ ا ]و[ ﻟ)ٮﺎ( ]ٮـ[ﻌﺺ ٯﯽ ﮐٮٮ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ )و( ا ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ 6
156
----------------------------------------- ‫ٮﮑﻞ ﺳﺎ ﯼ ﻋﻠٮﻢ ۝‬ 7
157
‫ٮﺴﻢ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ﻟﺮ ﺣ)ﻤ(ﮟ ا ﻟ]ﺮ ﺣٮﻢ[ ۝ ه]ﺪ[ )ﻩ( )ﺣٮـ(]ﻤﻪ ﺳﻮ[ )ر( ﻩ ا‬ 8
‫ﻻ ٮٯﻞ ٮﺴﻢ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮـ]ﺮ[ ا )ﻩ( ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻠﻪ و ر ﺳﻮ ﻟ)ﻪ( ا ﻟﯽ ا ﻟﺪ‬ 9
‫ٮـﮟ )ﻋﻬﺪ( ٮـﻢ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻤﺴﺮ ﮐٮـﮟ ٯﻠﺴٮﺤﻮ ا ٯﯽ ا ﻻ ر ص‬ 10
[‫ا )ر( ]ٮـﻌ[ﻪ ا ﺳﻬﺮ و ﻟٮـﻌﻠ)ﻤ(ﻮ )ا( ا ٮﻬﻢ ﻋٮﺮ )ﻣ(ﻌﺤ)ﺮ( ﯼ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ‬ 11
(‫و ر ﺳﻮ ﻟﻪ )و( ا ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﺤﺮ )ﯼ( ا ﻟﮑ)ٯـ(]ﺮ[ ٮـﮟ ۝ و ا )د ں‬ 12
‫ ا ﻟﺤﺢ‬// (‫ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻠﻪ و ر ﺳﻮ ﻟ]ﻪ[ }{ ا ﻟﯽ )ا ﻟ(]ٮـ[)ﺎ س ٮﻮ‬ 13
155
) The space between the beginning of the verse (alladhīna) and the pre-
sent point seems larger than would be needed for yuqīmūna l-ṣalāta.
156
) There is no decoration here, only a horizontal line.
157
) Pale traces of the grapheme ‫ اﻻ‬and another grapheme ending in a final lām are
visible exactly above the word sūra. These traces may belong to the word al-anfāl.
Slightly above these traces are others that are not quite legible, but might belong to
another instance of the word sūra.Therefore, the end of line 8 contains traces for three
words: al-anfāl, sūra, and another word that is also possibly sūra. Traces of this latter
word and al-anfāl are paler than those of the first instance of sūra. Considering that
the next line begins with the grapheme ‫ﻻٮٯﻞ‬, the following conjectural scenario can
explain the situation at the end of line 8:The scribe first wrote the word al-anfāl there,
forgetting to write sūra. He then added the word sūra to the text, slightly above al-
anfāl. However, this made the text cluttered, so he erased both al-anfāl and sūra (ex-
plaining why they are pale), and wrote the phrase sūrat al-anfāl anew, the ‫ ﻻٮٯﻞ‬part
being written on line 9. He then wanted to write lā taqul bi-smi llāhi after this end-of-
sūra caption, but mistook the ‫ ﻻٮٯﻞ‬of al-anfāl (which was on line 9) with the graphically
identical lā taqul. Therefore, he wrote bi-smi llāhi immediately after this ‫ﻻٮٯﻞ‬. Conse-
quently, the text came to be short of one instance of ‫ﻻٮٯﻞ‬.
‫ا ﻻ ﮐٮﺮ ا )ں( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺮ ﯼ ﻣ)ﮟ( ا )ﻟ(]ﻤ[)ﺴﺮ ﮐٮـﮟ( و ر } {‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫ﺳ]ﻮ[ )ﻟ(]ﻪ[ ‪)//‬ﺎ ں( ٮٮـ)ﻮ ٮـ(ﻮ ا ٯـ)ﻬﻮ( ﺣ)ٮﺮ ﻟﻬﻢ و( ا ]ں[ ٮٮـ]ﻮ[ ‪) / /‬ا( ‪)//‬ﺎ( } {‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ٮـﻬ]ﻢ[ ‪)//‬ٮﺮ( ﻣﻌ)ﺤ(]ﺮ ٮـ[ﮟ ا ﻟﻠﻪ )و ر( ‪]/ /‬ﻮ[ )ﻟ(]ﻪ[ ٯٮﺴﺮ ا )ﻟ(ﺪ ٮـﮟ } {‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫ﮐٯﺮ و ا ٮـﻌ)ﺪ( ا ٮ ا ﻟ)ٮﻢ( ۝ ا ﻻ ا ﻟ]ﺪ[ )ٮـ(ﮟ ﻋﻬ)ﺪ( ٮـ)ﻢ( ‪)/ /‬ﮟ(‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ا ﻟﻤﺴﺮ ﮐٮـﮟ ٯﻠﻢ ٮٮٯﺼـ]ﻮ[ ﮐﻢ ﺳٮﺎ و ﻟﻢ ٮـ)ﻄ(ﻬﺮ و ا‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫)ﻋ(ﻠ]ٮـﮑ[ﻢ ا ﺣﺪ ا ٯﻮ ٯﻮ )ا( ا ﻟ)ٮـ(ﻬ)ﻢ( ﻋﻬﺪ هﻢ ا ﻟ)ﻰ( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫ٮﻬﻢ ا ن ا ﻟﻠﻪ ]ٮـ[ﺤٮ ا ﻟﻤٮٯٮـﮟ ۝ ٯﺎ د ا ا ٮﺴﻠﺢ )ا( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪158‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫ﺳﻬﺮ ا ﻟﺤﺮ ]م[ ٯﺎ ]ٯـ[‪//‬ﻠ)ﻮ( ا ا ﻟ)ﻤ(ﺴﺮ آ]ٮـ[ﮟ ﺣٮـ]ٮ[ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫هﻢ و ﺣﺪ و هﻢ )و( ا ﺣ]ﺼ[ﺮ )و( هﻢ )و( ا ٯـﻌ)ﺪ( و ا )ﻟﻬﻢ(‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫ﮐﻞ ﻣﺮ ﺻﺪ ٯﺎ ں ٮﺎ ٮﻮ ا )و( ا ٯﻤﻮ ا ا ﻟﺼﻠﻮ ﻩ‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫و ا )ٮـ(ﻮ ا ا )ﻟﺮ( ﮐﻮ ﻩ ٯـﺤﻠ]ﻮ[ ا ﺳٮٮﻠﻬﻢ ا ‪) / /‬ا(}{ ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫{‪ / /‬ﮎ‬ ‫ﺣٮﻢ و ا )ں( ا ﺣﺪ ‪//‬ﮟ ا ﻟ}{ﺴر )آ(}‬ ‫‪159‬‬
‫ﻋٯـ‪ / /‬ر‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫{ ﻣ]ﺎ[ ﻣٮﻪ‬ ‫ٯﺎ ﺣﺮ ﻩ ﺣٮﺎ ‪]//‬ﺴﻤﻊ[ )آ(ﻠﻢ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ٮـ]ﻢ[ ا }‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫د ﻟﮏ ٮﺎ } { ]ٯﻮ[ م ﻻ ٮـ]ﻌ[)ٯـﻠﻮ( ]ں[ ‪) / /‬آ(‪]//‬ڡ[ ‪{ }/ /‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪ /‬ا ﻟﻠﻪ } {‬ ‫)ﻋ(ﻬ‪/‬‬ ‫‪160‬‬
‫{‪]//‬ﺴ[ﺮ ﮐٮـﮟ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫)‪Folio 5 B (Q 9.7 – 9.16‬‬
‫} { ﺳﻮ ﻟﻪ ا ﻻ ا ﻟﺪ ٮـﮟ ﻋﻬﺪ ٮﻢ )ﻋ(ٮﺪ ا ﻟﻤﺴﺤﺪ‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ٯﺎ )ﺳٮـ(]ٯـ[ﻢ ٮﻬﻢ ا ں ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[‬ ‫‪161‬‬
‫} {‪//‬ﺮ م ٯﻤﺎ ا )ﺳٮٯـ(]ﻤﻮ[ ا ‪]//‬ﮏ[‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫} {]ٮ[ ا ﻟ)ﻤٮـ(ٯٮـﮟ ۝ و ﮐٮـ)ڡ( ا ں ٮﻄﻬﺮ و ا ]ﻋ[ﻠ}{]ﮑﻢ[ ﻻ ]ٮﺮ[‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫} { ٯٮﻮ ٮﮑﻢ ا ﻻ و ﻻ د ﻣﻪ ٮﺮ ﺻﻮ ٮـ)ﮑ(ﻢ ٮﺎ ﻟ)ﺴٮـ(ٮﻬﻢ‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫و ٮﺎ ٮﯽ ٯﻠﻮ ٮـﻬ)ﻢ( و ا ﮐٮﺮ هﻢ ٯـ)ﺴ(]ٯﻮ[ ں ۝ ا ﺳٮﺮ )و( ا‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪158‬‬
‫‪, and the traces do not match it. The‬وﺣﺪ ٮﻤﻮ ‪) There is not enough space for‬‬
‫‪text may be thaqiftumūhum instead of wajadtumūhum.‬‬
‫‪159‬‬
‫)’‪) This comparatively small rā’ is written very close to the next letter (ḥā‬‬
‫‪and is slightly above the line, suggesting that the scribe had initially forgotten‬‬
‫‪to write it.‬‬
‫‪160‬‬
‫‪) Although the missing part at the beginning of the line is rather large,‬‬
‫‪the text is not necessarily longer than the standard one. The previous line’s text‬‬
‫‪starts somewhat after the beginning of the line. The same could hold in the pre-‬‬
‫‪sent line.‬‬
‫‪161‬‬
‫‪) The illegible letter before kāf may be a tooth-shaped one instead of lām.‬‬
‫]ٮـﻌ[ﻬﺪ ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ و ا ٮﻤٮﻬﻢ ٮﻤٮﺎ ٯـﻠ]ٮـ[ﻠﺎ ٯﺼﺪ و ا ﻋﮟ‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫ﺳ]ٮـ[)ٮـ(ﻞ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ٮﻬﻢ ﺳﺎ ﻣﺎ ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ ا ٮﻌﻤﻠﻮ ں ۝ ﻻ ٮـ]ﺮ[‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ٯٮﻮ ں ٯﯽ ﻣﻮ ]ﻣ[ﮟ ا ﻻ و ﻻ )د( ]ﻣﻪ[ ا و ﻟ]ٮـ[ﮏ ه]ﻢ[ ا ﻟﻤ]ﻌ[‪)//‬ﺪ(‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ا و ا ٯﻤﻮ ا ا ﻟﺼﻠﻮ ﻩ و ا ٮﻮ ا ا‬ ‫‪162‬‬
‫و ں ٯﺎ ں ﻧﺒﻮ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ﻟﺮ ﮐﻮ ﻩ ٯﺎ ﺣﻮ ٮﮑﻢ ٯﯽ ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ و ﻣﻮ ﻟٮﮑﻢ‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ٮٯـﺼ)ﻞ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ﻟ)ﺎ( ٮٮ ﻟﻌﻠﮑﻢ ٮﻌٯﻠـ]ﻮ[ ں ۝ و ا ں ٮﮑٮﻮ‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ا ا ٮﻤٮﻬﻢ ﻣﮟ ٮﻌﺪ ﻋﻬﺪ ه]ﻢ[ و ﻃﻌٮﻮ ا ٯـ]ﻰ[ د‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫} { ٮٮﮑﻢ ٯٯٮﻠﻮ ا ا )ٮـﻤ(‪ //‬ا ﻟﮑ)ٯـ(ﺮ ا ٮـ)ﻪ( ﻻ ا ٮـ)ﻤں( ﻟ)ﻬ(]ﻢ[‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫} {]ﻌ[ﻠ]ﻬ[‪ //‬ٮٮٮـﻬ]ﻮ[ ں ۝ و ﻣﺎ ﻟﮑﻢ ا ﻻ ]ٮـ[ٯـ]ٮـ[ﻠ)ﻮ( ں ٯﻮ ]ﻤ[ﺎ‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫)ٮﮑٮﻮ( ا ا ٮـﻤ]ٮـ[ﻬﻢ و هﻢ ٮﺪ و ﮐﻢ ا و ل ﻣﺮ )ﻩ و(‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫)ه(ﻤ]ﻮ[ ا ٮـ)ﺎ( ﺣﺮ ح ا ﻟﺮ ﺳﻮ ل ا ٮـﺤ)ﺴﻮ( ٮﻬﻢ ٯـ)ﺎ( ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪ //‬ﺣٯ ا ں ٮﺤﺴﻮ ا ا ں آ]ٮـٮـ[ﻢ ﻣﻮ ﻣ)ٮـ(ٮـﮟ )۝( ٯٮﻠﻮ هﻢ ٮﻌﺪ ٮﻬﻢ‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫]ا[ ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺎ ٮﺪ ٮﮑﻢ و ٮﺤﺮ هﻢ و ٮٮﺼﺮ ﮐﻢ ﻋﻠٮﻬﻢ‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫و ٮﺪ هٮ ﻋٮﻂ ﺻﺪ و ر ٯﻮ م ﻣﻮ ﻣٮٮﮟ ۝ و ٮﺪ‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫هٮ ﻋٮﻂ ٯﻠﻮ ٮﻬﻢ )و( ٮٮﻮ ٮ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻤں ٮﺴﺎ و‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫ﮐﻮ )ا( ]و[ ﻟﻤﺎ‬ ‫‪163‬‬
‫ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠ]ٮـ[ﻢ ﺣﮑٮﻢ ۝ ا ٯﺤﺴٮٮﻢ ا ں ﻧﻨﺮ‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫{‪ / /‬ا }{ﺪ ٮﮟ ﺣﻬﺪ و ا ﻣٮﮑﻢ ٯﯽ ﺳٮٮﻠـ)ﻪ( و‬ ‫ٮـ]ﻌﻠ[}‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫ﻟﻢ ٮٮﺤـ]ﺪ[ و )ا( ﻣﮟ د و ں ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ و( ﻻ )ر( ]ﺳ[ﻮ ﻟﻪ ‪ / /‬ﻻ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫} { ﻟﻤﻮ ﻣٮٮﮟ و ﻟٮﺤﻪ و ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﺣ‪//‬ٮـ)ﺮ( ٮﻤﺎ ٮﻌﻤﻠﻮ ں ۝‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫)‪Folio 6 A (Q 9.17 – 9.26‬‬
‫}{ ﻣﺎ ﮐﺎ ں ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺮ ﮐٮﮟ ا ں ٮﻌﻤﺮ و ا ﻣﺴﺤﺪ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﺳ} {‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﯽ ا ]ٮـ[ٯـﺴهﻢ ]ٮـ[ﺎ ﻟ‪ / /‬ا و ﻟٮﮏ ا ﻟﺪ ]ٮـ[ﮟ )ﺣٮـ(ﻄٮ ا ‪{ }/ /‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ٯﯽ ا ﻟ)ﺪ( )ٮٮـ(ﺎ و ا ﻻ ﺣﺮ ]ﻩ[ و ٯﯽ ا ﻟ)ٮـ(ﺎ ر هﻢ ﺣﻠﺪ و ں ۝ ا } {‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ٮـ)ﻌ(ﻤ]ﺮ[ ﻣﺴﺤﺪ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻣﮟ ا ]ﻣ[)ﮟ( ٮﺎ ﻟﻠﻪ و ا ﻟٮـ]ﻮ م[ ا ﻻ )ﺣ(]ﺮ[ )و( } {‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺣﻬﺪ )ٯـ(]ﻰ[ ﺳٮٮﻞ ا ﻟﻠﻪ و ﻟﻢ ٮﺤﺲ ا ﻻ ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ٯﻌﺴﯽ ا و ﻟٮـ‪{ }//‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺳ]ٯـ[‪//‬ﻪ ا ﻟ)ﺤ(ﺎ ح )و( } {‬ ‫‪164‬‬
‫ا ں ٮـﮑ‪ //‬ٮﻮ ا ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻤٯﻠﺤـ)ٮـ( ﮟ ۝ ا ﺣﻌﻠٮﻢ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪162‬‬
‫‪) Only one consonant-distinguishing mark is visible above the first tooth.‬‬
‫‪163‬‬
‫‪) One consonant-distinguishing mark is visible above each tooth. Slightly‬‬
‫‪above these marks is an upper text grapheme that probably covers the second‬‬
‫‪mark of each tooth.‬‬
‫‪164‬‬
‫‪) There are traces above the tooth preceding mīm that may belong to con-‬‬
‫‪sonant-distinguishing marks for the letter tā’.‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﺮ ﻩ ا ﻟﻤ)ﺴ(ﺤﺪ ا ﻟﺤﺮ م )آ(ﻤﮟ ا ﻣﮟ ٮﺎ ﻟﻠﻪ و ا ﻟٮﻮ م ا‬ 7

‫ٯﯽ ﺳٮٮﻞ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻻ ٮﺴٮﻮ ں ﻋٮـ)ﺪ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫ و ﺣﻬﺪ و ا‬/ /(‫ﻻ )ﺣ‬
165
8
‫)ا( ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻻ ٮﻬﺪ ﯼ ا ﻟٯـ]ﻮ[ م ا ﻟﻄﻠﻤٮﮟ ۝ ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ا ]ﻣٮﻮ[ ا‬ 9
‫ و ا ]و[ ﺣﻬ]ﺪ[ و ا ٯـ)ﻰ( ﺳٮـ)ٮـ(ﻞ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺎ ﻣﻮ ﻟﻬﻢ‬/ /‫و ه‬ 10
[‫ )ا و ﻟ(]ٮـ[)ـﮏ( ه]ﻢ[ ا ﻟٯـ]ٮﺮ‬/ / 166[‫و ا ٮٯﺴﻬﻢ ا ]ﻋ[)ﻄﻢ( )د( ر ﺣ]ﻪ‬
167
11
{} [‫]ٮ‬//[‫ ]ﺣ‬// (‫ )ں‬//[‫ﻬ]ﻢ[ ٮﺮ )ﺣ(]ﻤ[)ﻪ( ]ﻣٮﻪ و ر ﺻ‬// ‫ﺮ هﻢ ر‬/ /(‫و ں ۝ ٮـ)ٮـ‬ 12
{ } [‫ )ا ں ا ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ‬/ / ‫ﻬﺎ ٮﻌٮﻢ ﻣٯٮﻢ ۝ ه)ﻢ( ]ٯٮـﻬ[ﺎ ﺣﻠﺪ و‬/ / ‫ﻟﻬﻢ‬ 13
{ } [‫ٮـﺤﺪ و )ا( ]ا‬// ‫ﻩ ا ﺣ)ﺮ( ﻋﻄٮﻢ ۝ ٮﺎ ٮﻬﺎ ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ا ﻣٮﻮ ا ﻻ‬ 14
{ }‫ﮐﻢ )و( ﻻ ا ٮٮﺎ ﮐﻢ و ﻻ ا ﺣﻮ ٮـ)ﮑ(ﻢ ا )و( ﻟ]ٮﺎ ا[ ں ا ﺳٮﺤـ‬ 15
[‫ا ا ﻟﮑٯـ]ﺮ[ ﻋﻠﯽ ا ﻻ ٮﻤﮟ و ﻣﮟ ٮٮﻮ ﻟ]ٮـ[ﻬ]ﻢ[ ٯﺎ )و( ﻟٮﮏ ه]ﻢ‬ 16
[‫ا ﻟﻄﻠﻤﻮ ں ۝ ٯﻞ ا ں )آ(ﺎ ں ا )ٮﺎ( آ]ﻢ و[ ا ]ٮٮـ[ــﺎ )آ(]ﻢ[ و ]ا‬ 17
/ /[‫]ﮑ[ﻢ و )ا ﻣﻮ( ل ا ]ٯـ‬// [‫ر )و( ﺣﮑﻢ و ]ﻋﺴٮﺮ‬168 ‫ﺣﻮ ٮﮑﻢ و ا‬ 18
‫ﮟ )ٮﺮ( ﺻﻮ ٮﻬﺎ‬/ /(‫ ]ﻩ[ ٮﺤٯﻮ ں آ)ﺴ(ﺪ هﺎ و )ﻣ‬//‫ هﺎ )و( ٮـﺤ‬//‫}{ ٯـ]ٮـ[ﻤ‬ 19
/ /‫}{ ا ]ﺣٮ[ ا ﻟٮـ]ﮑﻢ[ ﻣﮟ ا )ﻟ(ﻠ]ﻪ[ و ر ﺳﻮ ﻟﻪ و ﺣﻬﺪ ٯﯽ ﺳٮٮـ‬ 20
(‫ﻠ]ﻪ[ )ﻻ ٮﻬﺪ ﯼ‬// ‫}{ ٯـ]ٮﺮ[ ٮﺼﻮ ا ﺣ]ٮـ[)ﻰ( ]ٮـ[ﺎ ]ٮـ[ﻰ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺎ ﻣﺮ ﻩ ا ں ا‬ 21
‫ ﻃ)ﮟ( ]ﮐٮٮـ[ﺮ ﻩ‬/ / (‫}{ ا ﻟٯﻮ م ا ﻟٯﺴٯٮﮟ )۝( ﻟٯﺪ )ٮـ(ﺼﺮ )آ(ﻢ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ]ٯـ[)ﻰ‬ 22
{ } ‫ ]ٮـﻌ[ﮟ‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬169‫}{ و ٮﻮ م ﺣٮٮﮟ ا د ا ﻋﺤ)ٮٮـ(]ﮑ[ﻢ ﮐٮﺮ‬ 23
165
) The letters wāw and alif are written in the small space available after
dāl, suggesting that the scribe had not written them initially. This emendation is
wrong, however, as the plural jāhadū does not agree with the singular pronoun
man preceding it. Perhaps the scribe conflated this word with the next verse’s
jāhadū, which should be in plural.
166
) It seems a different word had been initially written in place of daraja.
One can see the remnants of an alif and another letter (possibly an initial lām)
exactly where the grapheme ‫ ﺣﻪ‬is written.
167
) Traces that match the phrase ʽinda llāhi are visible beneath the word
ulā’ika. Perhaps the scribe first wrote ʽinda llāhi, but then erased it and wrote
ulā’ika in its place.
168
) Traces of an initial ʽayn are visible here. Perhaps the scribe began writing
ʽashīratukum, which is the next word, but then erased it and wrote azwājukum. In
other words, the scribe may have caught himself in the course of an inadvertent
omission.
169
) There are two strokes above the preceding tooth that might be conso-
nant-distinguishing marks for the letter thā’. The two strokes are not placed
vertically above each other; one is to the right and slightly lower than the other.
{ } 170/ / ‫}{ ﻋٮﮑﻢ ﺳﺎ ﯼ )و( ]ﺻ[ٯٮ )ﻋ(ﻠ]ٮـ[ﮑﻢ ا ﻻ ر )ص( ]ٮﻤﺎ[ ر‬ 24

{ } ‫ ]ٮـ[)ﻢ ا( ]ٮﺮ ل[ )ا ﻟ(]ﻠ[)ﻪ( ا‬/ / ‫ ﻣﺪ ٮﺮ‬/ / (‫]ﻢ[ )و‬// [‫]ٮ‬/ /{ } 25
{ } 173/ / 172[‫]ﺴـﻜـٮـٮـﻪ‬//171 { } 26
Folio 6 B (Q 9.26 – 9.34)
{} (‫ ]ٮﺮ[ )و( ]ه[)ﺎ و‬/ / [‫} { ]ا ﻟﻤﻮ ﻣٮٮﮟ و[ ا ]ٮﺮ[ ل ]ﺣٮـ[)ﻮ د( ]ا‬ 1
[‫ ۝ )ٮـ(]ﻢ‬/ / ‫} {]ٮ[ )ا ﻟ(]ﺪ ٮﮟ ﮐٯﺮ و[ ا ]و[ )د ﻟ(]ﮏ ﺣﺮا ا ﻟﮑٯـ[ﺮ‬ 2
[‫ ﻣ)ﮟ( ]ٮﺴﺎ و[ ا ]ﻟﻠﻪ[ )ﻋﻠ(]ٮﻢ‬//[‫ )ﻟﮏ( ]ﻋﻠ‬// [‫ ]ٮﻌﺪ‬/ /(‫} { )ٮ ا ﻟﻠ‬ 3
[‫]ﻤﺳﺮ ﮐﻮ‬// [‫ ]ا ٮﻤﺎ ا‬/ / (‫ )ا‬/ / [‫ ]ﻟﺪ‬// [‫]ﺎ‬/ / [‫ ۝ ]ٮﺎ‬/ /[‫} { )ﺣ(]ﮑ‬ 4
[‫)ﻬ(]ﻢ‬/ / [‫]ﻌﺪ‬/ /(‫]ﺪ[ )ا ﻟ‬/ / [‫)ا( ]ا‬ 174
/ / (‫)ﺤﺲ‬// ‫} { ں‬ 5
(‫]ﻠ[)ﻪ‬/ / [‫]ﮟ‬// [‫]ﻪ‬//[‫)ا( ]ﻟ‬ 175
/ /[‫ ]ٯـ‬/ /[‫ ]ﻋ‬/ / [‫} { ]هﺪ[ )ا( ]و‬ 6
/ / (‫ )ا‬/
176
/[‫ ]ﺣ‬/ / [‫ ]ا ں ا‬//[‫ ]ﺳ‬/ / ‫} { ا‬ 7
/ / ‫]ا ﻻ[ )ﺣ(]ﺮ[ و‬ /
177
/[‫ ]ﻟ‬/ /[‫)ﻮ ں( ]ٮـ‬//[‫ ]ﻣ‬/ / [‫]ﮟ ﻻ‬/ /(‫)ﻟ‬ 8
/ /178[‫ ]ﻟ‬/ /[‫ ]ﻟﻠ‬/ / [‫]ٮﺤﺮ ﻣﻮ[ ں ]ﻣﺎ‬ 9
170
) One can see traces matching an initial ḥā’. In light of the first visible let-
ters on the next line, it seems the scribe initially attempted to write ‫ ﺣٮٮ‬here but
then changed his mind, erased what he had written, and wrote ‫ ﺣٮٮ‬on the next
line. This suggests the folio was physically incomplete at the end of this line
already when the scribe was writing the text, because if the folio were complete,
it would have enough room for the grapheme ‫ﺣٮٮ‬.
171
) Nothing is written at the beginning of this line due to lack of space.
Space opens up further to the left due to the upward slope of the previous line.
172
) The text seems to have al-sakīnata instead of sakīnatahu.
173
) The legible letters on lines 25 and 26 (and also the first letters on side B)
suggest nothing was written on the triangle-shaped missing part of the folio.
Therefore, this part of the folio was probably missing or damaged already when
the lower text was being written.
174
) The traces at the beginning of this part do not quite match fa-lā. The
second letter may be dāl, kāf, or ṣād.
175
) There is not enough room for sawfa yughnīkum, and the meager traces
do not match this phrase.The text may be fa-sa-yughnīkum.
176
) Assuming the putative ḥā’ in the middle of the line belongs to the word
ḥakīm, and considering the traces in the next line, there might be more space
than is needed for the standard text.
177
) There is less room than expected for wa-lā bi-l-yawmi. Perhaps the text
has wa-bi-l-yawmi instead.
178
) This letter probably belongs to the word rasūluhu.
[‫ ]ا ا ﻟﮑ[)ٮٮ( ]ﻣﮟ‬/ / [‫ ]ا‬/ /[‫ ]ﻣﮟ ا ﻟ‬/ /[‫]ں[ )د( ]ٮﮟ[ )ا ﻟ(]ﺤ‬ 10
‫ ]ﻋﮟ ٮﺪ[ و هﻢ ]ﺻﻌ[ﺮ و‬/ / (‫)ﺤﺮ‬// (‫ )ا‬// (‫]ﻄ[)ﻮ‬//[‫ ]ٮـ‬/ / [‫]ٯٮﻠﮑﻢ‬ 11
[‫]ﺮ ﯼ‬/ / [‫ ]ا‬/ / [‫ ]و‬/ / [‫]ﮟ‬/ / [‫} { ]ٯﻠٮ[ )ا( ]ﻟٮـﻬ[ﻮ ]د ﻋﺮ‬ 12
[‫]ﻬﻢ‬/ /‫ ﻟ‬/ / (‫ )ا‬/ / (‫ )ا‬/ /‫} { ]ﻟ[ﻤ‬ 13
[‫ ]ا‬//[‫]ﻬ‬/ / [‫]ﮟ‬// [‫ ]و ا‬/ /[‫]ﮟ ﮐ‬// [‫]ﺪ‬// (‫ )ا‬/ / [‫و ]ں‬//{ } 14
‫ و ر‬/ / (‫)ا ﺣ(]ٮـ[)ﺮ‬ 179
/ / [‫ )ٮـ(ٮـﺤ)ﺪ( ]و‬/ / [‫ ]ں‬//[‫]ﮑ‬// [‫]ﻪ[ )ا( ]ٮـ[)ﻰ( ]ٮﻮ‬//[‫]ﻟ‬ 15
/ /[‫ )و( ]ا ﻟ‬//[‫ )ﻟ(]ﻠ‬/ / [‫ﻬﻢ )ا( ]ر ٮٮﺎ[ )ﻣﮟ( ]د‬/ / 16
/
181
/ [‫ )ا( ]ا ﻻ‬/ / ‫ ﻣﺎ ا‬// [‫]ٮﻢ‬ 180
/ / 17
/ / [‫]ﺮ‬/ / 183[‫)ﻠ(]ﻰ‬/ / 182[‫]ﻪ‬//‫ ﻟ‬/ / (‫)و‬ 18
{} [‫ ]ٮﺎ ٯﻮ‬/ / [‫)ر( ]ا‬ 185
/ / (‫ ]و[ )ں‬/ / [‫]ٮﺮ‬ 184
/ / 19
{} ‫)ﺮ( و‬/ / [‫ ]ا‬// [‫ ]ﻟو[ ﮐ]ﺮ‬/ / [‫]ٮﻮ‬ 186
/ / [‫ و ]ا‬/ / 20
{} ‫ )و( د‬/ / [‫ ا ]ر‬/ / (‫ )ا‬/ / 188
(‫)و‬ (‫ )۝‬/ /
187
21
{} ‫ )و( ﻟﻮ‬/ / [‫]ﻰ‬/ / ‫}{ ٮﮟ )ا( ]ﻟﺤ[ٯ‬ 22
{} [‫]ﮟ‬/ / [‫ ]ں‬/ /[‫ ]ا ﻟ‬// [‫} { ]ﮐﺮ‬ 23
179
) This word is probably yattakhidhūna.
180
) The traces here do not quite match ‫اٮـﮟ ﻣﺮ‬.
181
) At the beginning of this part is a vertical line leaning to the right. It
probably does not belong to an initial lām, which would lean to the left. Maybe
the text is an yaʽbudū instead of li-yaʽbudū.
182
) This word might be allāh.
183
) Considering the traces and the amount of space, the text might be
li-yaʽbudū llāha lā ilāha illā huwa subḥānahu wa-taʽālā. That is, it probably lacks
ilāhan wāḥidan (having instead allāh), but has an additional wa-taʽālā after
subḥānahu.
184
) There is more space between this spot and rā’ in the previous line than
needed for ‫ﮐﻮں‬.
185
) The traces at the beginning of this part do not match an yuṭfi’ū. They
might belong to li-yuṭfi’ū.
186
) The illegible part is too small for wa-ya’bā llāhu illā an yutimma. More-
over, the first letter seems to be alif, not a tooth-shaped letter. The text could be
wa-llāhu yutimmu nūrahu/mutimmu nūrihi.
187
) Traces resembling an initial or medial hā’ appear exactly above the
verse division marker. Perhaps the scribe initially forgot to put the verse divi-
sion marker and wrote huwa, but then erased huwa and added the marker. This is
not very probable, however, since there is enough room before this spot for a
verse division marker. Alternatively, the traces may belong to a special symbol
for designating the thirtieth verse. Or else, the traces may be smudges.
188
) This wa- is probably non-standard.
{} / / [‫ ]ﻣ[ﮟ ]ا ﻻ‬/ / [‫} { ]ا ﻣٮﻮ[ ا )ا( ]ں‬ 24

{ } (‫ )ﻟٮﺎ س‬// (‫ ]ﻣ[ﻮ )ل‬/ / 189
‫ ں‬/ / [‫ ]ٮﺎ‬/ / ‫{ ﻟﺮ‬ } 25
{ }‫ و )ں( ]ﻋ[ﮟ )ﺳٮـ(]ٮﻞ[ )ا( ﻟ‬/ /‫ ٮـﺼ‬/ / [‫ ]ﻟٮﺎ‬/ /
190
{ } 26
Folio 20 A (Q 9.70 – 9.80)
{ }‫]ٮـﻄﻠﻤﻬﻢ[ و ﻟ‬// ‫ ٮﺎ ﻟٮٮٮٮ ٯﻤﺎ ﮐﺎ ں ا )ﻟ(ﻠﻪ‬//[‫} {]ﺴ[ﻠ]ﻬ‬ 1

{ }(‫ ﻟ)ﻤ(ﻮ ﻤ)ٮٮٮ( )ٮـﻌ‬// [‫)ٮﮟ( ]و‬//‫ ں )۝( ا )ﻟ(]ﻤﻮ[ ﻣ‬//[‫} {]و[ )ا ا( ]ٮٯﺴﻬﻢ[ ٮـﻄﻠ]ﻤ‬ 2
{ }‫)ﻣ(ﮟ ٮـﻌ)ﺺ ٮﺎ( ]ﻣﺮ و[ ں ٮـﻠ]ﻤﻌﺮ[ و )ڡ( و )ٮٮـ(]ﻬ[)ﻮ ں( ﻋﮟ ا ﻟﻤٮـ‬ 3
{ }‫ا ﻟﺼﻠ)ﻮ( ﻩ و ٮﻮ ٮﻮ )ں( ا ﻟﺮ آ)ﻮ( ﻩ و ٮـﻄٮـﻌ)ﻮ( ں ا ﻟ‬ 4
{ }//‫ﺳﻮ ﻟﻪ او ﻟٮﮏ ﺳٮﺮ ﺣﻤﻬ)ﻢ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ]و[ ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( )ﻋ(ﻠ‬ 5
{ } ‫ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﻮ ﻣٮٮﮟ و ا ﻟﻤﻮ ﻣٮٮٮ ﺣٮٮ‬ 191
‫ﺪ‬// (‫)ٯﺎ‬ 6
{ }[‫ا ﻻ ٮﻬﺮ ﺣﻠﺪ ٮﻦ ٯٮﻬﺎ و )ﻤ(ﺴﮑں ﻃ]ٮـ‬ 192
(‫ٮـﺤٮـ)ﻬﺎ‬ 7
193
{ }[‫ﻋﺪ )ں( د ﻟﮏ ا ﻟ)ٯﻮ( ر ا ﻟ)ﻌ(ﻄٮـﻢ ۝ ٮﺎ ٮﻬﺎ ا ﻟٮٮـ)ﻰ( ﺣ]ﻬ‬ 8
{ }‫ﻬ]ﻢ و ﻣ[)ﻮ( ]ٮـ[ﻬﻢ ا ﻟٮﺎ ر و ٮٮﺲ ا ﻟ‬//‫]و[ ا ﻋﻠﻂ ]ﻋ[ﻠ‬ 9
194
{ }(‫ٮٯﺴﻤـ)ﻮ( ں ٮﺎ ﻟﻠ)ﻪ ﻣ(ﺎ )ٯـ(ﺎ ﻟ)ﻮ( ا و ﻟ)ٯـ(ﺪ ٯﺎ ]ﻟﻮ[ )ا آ‬ 10
{ }[‫ )ا( ٮـﻤ)ﺎ( ﻟ)ﻢ( ٮٮـﻠ)ﻮ( ا و )ﻣ(ﺎ ٮـٯـﻤ)ﻮ( ا ا ﻻ ا ں ا ﻋ)ٮـ(]ٮـ‬/ /[‫و ]ه‬ 11
(‫ )ں‬// [‫ ]ﺳﻮ[ ﻟ]ﻪ[ )ﻣ(ﮟ ٯـ)ﺼ(ﻠ]ﻪ[ و ا )ں( ٮٮـ)ﻮ( ٮـ)ﻮ ا ٯـﻬ(]ﻮ[ ﺣٮـ]ﺮ[ ﻟﻬ]ﻢ[ ]و‬// ‫و‬ 12
[‫ ]ﻩ‬//(‫ﻮ )ﻟ(ﻮ ٮﻌﺪ ٮـﻬ]ﻢ[ ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ٯﯽ ا ﻟ]ﺪ[ ٮٮﺎ و )ﻣ(ﺎ ﻟﻬﻢ ]ٯـ[)ﻰ( ا ﻻ )ﺣ‬// 13
(‫]ﻣﮟ[ و ﻟﯽ و ﻻ ٮـ)ﺼ(ٮﺮ ۝ و ﻣٮـ)ﻬ(ﻢ ﻣﮟ ٮـﻌ)ﻬ(ﺪ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻟ]ٮـ[ﮟ ا ٮٮٮٮﺎ )ﻣﮟ‬ 14
/ /(‫ ﻟٮٮﺼﺪ ٯـﮟ و ﻟ]ٮـ[ﮑﻮ ﻧﮟ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﺼﻠﺤٮـﮟ ٯﻠﻤﺎ ا )ٮٮـ‬/ /‫]ٯـ[ﺼ‬ 15
189
) The traces before nūn match the graphemes ‫ ﺣﺪ‬and (less likely) ‫ﺣﺪو‬.
Therefore, the word is probably ya’khudhūna.
190
) The placement of the graphemes in the last three lines suggests that the
triangular missing part of the folio at the bottom-right corner was missing or
damaged already when the lower text was being written.
191
) This word is probably fa-aʽadda.
192
) There are traces above the second tooth that may belong to consonant-
distinguishing marks for the letter tā’.
193
) There is not enough room for the phrase al-kuffāra wa-l-munāfiqīn. The
text might lack either al-kuffār or al-munāfiqīn. The limited space favors al-
kuffār, which is shorter.
194
) There is not enough room in this physically missing part for the stan-
dard text between qālū and hammū. Perhaps the phrase wa-kafarū baʽda islāmi-
him is absent.
/ /‫ ۝ ٯـ)ﺎ( )ﻋ(ٯـ‬196/ /‫ ﻟﻮ ﻣﻌﺮ ﺻ‬195‫ ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻣﮟ ٯـﺼﻠ)ﻪ( ٮﺤﻠﻮ )ا( ٮﻪ و ٮﻮ‬// 16

[‫ ٮـﻠ)ٯـ(ﻮ ٮﻪ د ﻟﮏ ٮﻤﺎ ا ﺣـﻠ]ٯﻮ ا‬// ‫]ا ﻟﻠﻪ[ ٮٯٯﺎ ا ﻟﯽ ٮﻮ‬ 17
(‫ا ﻟ]ﻠ[)ﻪ( ﻣﺎ و ﻋﺪ )و( ﻩ و ﻣﺎ ﮐﺎ )ٮـ(ﻮ ا ٮﮑﺪ ٮـ)ﻮ ں( ۝ ا و )ﻟﻢ‬ 18
/ / [‫ ا ا ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮـﻌﻠ)ﻢ( ﺳﺮ ه)ﻢ( و )ٮـﺤ(ﻮ هﻢ و ا ں ]ا‬/ /‫ٮـ)ﻌ(ﻠ‬ 19
//[‫ا ﻟ]ﺪ[ )ٮـ(ﮟ )ٮـ(ﻠﻤﺮ )و( ں ا ﻟﻤٮﻄﻮ ﻋٮـ)ﮟ( ﻣﮟ ا )ﻟ(]ﻤ‬ 197
‫ﻋﻠﻢ ا ﻟ)ﻌٮـ(]ﻮ[ ٮ ۝‬ 20
//[‫ﻣٮٮﮟ ٯﯽ ا ﻟ)ﺼ(ﺪ ٯـ]ٮ[ و ا ﻟ)ﺪ( ٮﮟ ﻻ ٮﺤﺪ و ں ا )ﻻ( ]ﺣﻬ‬ 21
[‫هﻢ ﺳﺤ)ﺮ( و ا ﻣٮﻬﻢ ٯﺴﺤﺮ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻣٮﻬﻢ و ﻟﻬﻢ )ﻋ(ﺪ ا ]ٮ‬ 22
‫ﺮ‬//[‫} {)ا( ﻟ)ٮﻢ( ۝ ا ﺳٮﻌٯﺮ ﻟ)ﻬ(ﻢ ا و ﻻ ٮـ)ﺴ(ٮـﻌ]ٯـ[ﺮ ﻟ)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ ا ں ٮـ)ﺴٮـ(]ﻌ‬ 23
// (‫ )ﻟ(ﻠﻪ ﻻ ٮـ)ﻬﺪ‬198[‫ ﻻ ٮﻌٯﺮ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻟﻬﻢ ا ]ں ا‬/ / ‫} {]ﻟﻬ[)ﻢ( ]ﺳٮـﻌٮـ[)ﮟ( ﻣﺮ‬ 24
/ /{ } ‫]ﮟ[ ۝‬//[‫]ٯـﺴٯـ‬// ‫]ا ﻟٯﻮ م[ ا‬ 199
{ } 25
Folio 20 B (Q 9.81 – 9.90)
{ } [‫ ﺣﻠ]ڡ[ ر ﺳ)ﻮ( ]ل‬201(‫ و )ا‬/ /(‫ﻠ)ٯـ(ﻮ )ں( ٮﺎ )ں ٯـ‬/ /[‫ ا ]ﻟ‬200{ } 1

/ / (‫ ﻣ)ﻮ‬/ / (‫ )ٮـﺤ(]ﻬ[)ﺪ( ]و[ )ا‬/ / (‫{ و )ﮐﺮ( ]ه[)ﻮ( ا )ا‬ } 2
(‫ )و‬//(‫]ﻠﻪ[ و ٯـﻠ]ﻮ[ ا ]ﻻ[ )ٮٮـٯـ‬// (‫]ٮٮﻞ[ )ا‬/ /(‫]ﻢ[ )ٯـ‬/ /{ } 3
195
) There are traces above the tooth that may belong to consonant-
196
) There is not enough room for a final wāw and an isolated nūn. It seems
that the scribe wrote an accusative ending (īn) here, but this was changed later,
since there are traces above the verse division marker that match the letter nūn.
These traces are darker than the other characters and have a green hue.
197
) This verse division marker is placed above the previous letter. Since
there is little space between the previous and next letter, it seems the scribe
initially forgot to write the marker and added it later.
198
) The folio is partly missing here, but traces are visible that may belong to
nūn and alif.
199
) Nothing is written before this point due to lack of space. Space opens up
further to the left due to the upward slope of the previous line.
200
) Since this missing part has enough room for fariḥa, it is not clear what is
written on the last third of the last line of side A. Either the latter part of line 25
on side A was damaged already when the lower text was being written, and
therefore contains no text, or the text is longer than the standard one.
201
) This word may be qaʽadū.
‫ ﻟ)ﻮ( ﮐﺎ‬// ‫ )ﺣﻬ(]ٮـﻢ[ ا ﺳﺪ ﺣﺮ‬202(‫ )ر‬/ /(‫{)ﻟ(ﺤﺮ و ا )ﻟ‬ } 4

(‫ ا ﮐٮٮﺮ )ا‬//‫ ں ۝ ]ٯـ[)ﻠٮـ(]ﺼ[)ﺤ(]ﮑ[)ﻮ ا ٯـﻠٮـ(]ﻠﺎ[ )و( ﻟٮٮـﮑ‬//[‫]ﻬ‬//{ } 5
‫ ر ﺣ]ﻌ[ﮏ ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ ا ﻟﯽ‬/ / ‫{ ﮐٮﻮ )ا( ٮﻌﻤﻠﻮ ں ۝‬ } 6
‫{]ﻬﻢ[ ٯﺎ ﺳٮﺪ ٮﻮ ﮎ ٯﯽ ا ﻟﺤﺮ و ح ٯـ)ٯـ(ﻞ‬ } 7
[‫{ﻮ ا ﻣﻌﯽ ا ٮﺪ )ا( و )ﻟﮟ( ٮـٯـ)ٮـ(ﻠﻮ ا ﻣ]ﻌ[ﻰ ﻋﺪ ]و‬ } 8
‫{]ﻢ[ ر ﺻٮٮﻢ ٮﺎ ﻟٯـ)ﻌ(ﺪ ﻩ ا و ]ل[ )ﻣ(ﺮ ﻩ )ٯﺎ( ٯـ)ﻌ(ﺪ‬ } 9
[‫{ ا ﻟﺤﻠٯـ)ٮـ(ں )۝( ]و[ ﻻ )ٮﺼﻞ ﻋ(ﻠ)ﻰ( ا )ﺣﺪ( ﻣ]ٮـ[)ﻬ(]ﻢ‬ } 10
[‫{ ٮﺪ )ا( و )ﻻ( ٮٯﻢ ﻋﻠﯽ ٯـ]ٮـ[)ﺮ( ﻩ ا ٮـ)ﻬﻢ( ]ﮐٯﺮ و‬ } 11
‫]ﻠﻪ[ )و ر( ]ﺳ[)ﻮ ﻟ(]ﻪ[ )و( ﻣﺎ ٮﻮ )ا و( ه]ﻢ[ ٯـﺴ)ٯـ(]ﻮ[ ں ۝‬//{ } 12
‫]و ا د[ ا )ٯـٮـ(]ﻞ[ ا ﻣٮﻮ ا ]ٮﺎ[ ﻟ)ﻠ(]ﻪ[ و ﺣ)ﻬ(]ﺪ[ و )ا( ]ﻣ[ﻊ ر )ﺳ(ﻮ‬ 203
13
‫ ا‬//‫ )ا( ﺳٮﺪ ]ٮـ[ﮏ )ا و( ]ﻟﻮ ا[ ا )ﻟﻄ(ﻮ ل ﻣٮـﻬ]ﻢ[ و ]ٯـ[ﻠ‬/ / 14
[‫ )ٮـ(ﺎ ں ٮﮑﻮ ]ٮﻮ‬/ / (‫)د ر( ]ٮﺎ ٮـ[ﮑ)ﮟ( )ﻣ(ﻊ )ا( ﻟٯﻌﺪ ٮﮟ ۝ ]ر[ ﺻ)ﻮ‬ 15
‫]ا ﻣ[ﻊ ا ﻟﺤ]ﻮ[ ﻟ)ڡ ٯـ(]ﻄ[)ٮـﻊ( ]ﻋ[ﻠﻰ ٯﻠﻮ ٮﻬﻢ ٯﻬﻢ‬ 16
‫ﻻ ٮـٯـٯـ]ﻬ[ﻮ )ں( ۝ ﻟ]ﮑ[)ﮟ( ]ا ﻟﺮ[ ﺳ]ﻮ ل[ و ا ﻟﺪ ]ٮـ[)ﮟ( ا ﻣ]ٮﻮ[ ا‬ 17
[‫)ٮـٮـ(]ﻞ‬/ / ‫ﻢ ٯﯽ‬//[‫]ﺴ‬//[‫]ﻪ[ )ﺣﻬﺪ( و ا ]ٮﺎ[ ﻣ]ﻮ[ ﻟﻬ]ﻢ[ و )ا( ]ٮـ‬/ / 18
204
/ /‫ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ا و ﻟ)ٮﮏ( ﻟ)ﻬﻢ( )ا ﻟﺤ(]ٮـ[)ﺮ( ]ٮ[ و ا و ﻟٮـ)ﮏ( ه‬ 19
(‫)ﻮ( ]ں[ )ا( ﻋﺪ ا )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ ﻟ)ﻬﻢ( ﺣٮٮ ٮـﺤ)ﺮ ﯼ‬//(‫)ـٯـﻠ‬/ / 20
‫)ﮟ( ٮـﺤ]ٮـﻬﺎ ا[ )ﻻ( )ٮـ(]ﻬﺮ[ ﺣﻠﺪ ٮﮟ ]ٯٮـ[)ﻬﺎ د( ]ﻟ[ﮏ ا‬// 21
(‫ ]ر[ و ں ]ﻣ[)ﮟ ا ﻻ‬206/ /[‫ )ا ﻟ(]ﻤ‬205/ / (‫ ]ر[ )ا ﻟ(]ﻌﻄٮـﻢ[ )۝‬/ / 22
202
) The text seems to have been al-nāru Jahannama, the definite article be-
ing a scribal error. There are traces after the alif of the definite article, placed
rather close to it, that might represent a nūn or lām. These traces have a high
likelihood of being a smudge, but if not, then the putative letter may have been
part of a correction to inna nāra or, less likely, qul nāru.
203
) Verse 85 is missing. The omission may represent a scribe’s eyes skipping
from the instance of ūna followed by a verse separator and the morpheme wa at
the end of verse 84 to the instance of ūna followed by a verse separator and the
morpheme wa at the end of verse 85.
204
) The letter after hā’ is more similar to wāw than mīm.
205
) There are no traces of the letter wāw in this part, and there is not
enough space for ‫ و ﺣﺎ‬either. There are traces that may belong to the letter jīm
and others that match a final alif, but the space between them is rather large, as
if another letter were written between them.
206
) The space after the putative mīm is larger than is needed for ʽayn and
dhāl. Perhaps the word is al-muʽtadhirūn, which is reported here for Ibn Masʽūd
and Saʽīd b. Jubayr (al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 3:436).
‫]ﻋﺮ ٮ ﻟ[}{]ﻮ[ )د ں( ﻟﻬ]ﻢ[ )و ٯـﻌ(‪ //‬ا ﻟ)ﺪ( ٮـ)ﮟ ﮐﺪ(‬ ‫‪23‬‬

‫ٮـ‪) //‬ا( } { ]ﻟ[‪)//‬ﻪ( و ر ﺳ)ﻮ( ﻟ)ﻪ( ﺳٮـ)ﺼ(‪]//‬ٮ[ )ا ﻟ(ﺪ )ٮﮟ( } {‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫آ)ٯـ(‪] //‬و[ ‪] //‬ﻋ[‪] //‬ا[ )ٮ ا( ]ﻟٮﻢ[ ۝ } {‬ ‫‪207‬‬
‫{‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫)‪Folio 22 A (Q 9.121–129 – 19.1–5‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} { و )ﻻ( ٮـ‪)//‬ٯٯـ(ﻮ ں ٮـ)ٯـ(]ٯـ[ﻪ ]ﺻ[ﻌٮـ‪) / /‬ﻻ( }‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{‬ ‫ں و )د( ٮﺎ ا ]ﻻ[ آ]ٮـ[ٮ ﻟﻬ)ﻢ( )ﻟ(‪)//‬ﺤ(‪) //‬ٮـ(ﻬﻢ }‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ﻣ(ﺎ ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ ا ٮﻌﻤﻠﻮ ں ۝ ﻣﺎ ]آ[ﺎ ں ا ﻟ}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)آ(ﺎ )ٯﻪ( ]ٯـ[ﻠﻮ ﻻ ٮٯﺮ ﻣﮟ ﮐﻞ ا ﻣ)ﻪ( }‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٯﯽ ا ﻟ)ﺪ( ٮـ)ﮟ( ]و[ ﻟٮٮﺪ ]ر[ )و ا( ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪208‬‬
‫‪/‬ﻬﻮ ا‬ ‫ﻟ‪/‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫)ر و( ں ]۝ ٮﺎ ٮـﻬ[‪ //‬ا ﻟ)ﺪ( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪209‬‬
‫)ﺮ( ﺣﻌﻮ ا )ا( ]ﻟ[‪) / /‬ﻟﻌ(ﻠ)ﻬﻢ( ٮـﺤـــﺪ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ا ﻣ)ٮﻮ( ا ٯـٮـ)ﻠ(]ﻮ[ ا ا ﻟﺪ )ٮـ(ﮟ ٮﻠﻮ ٮـ]ﮑﻢ[ ﻣﮟ ا ]ﻟﮑ[)ٯﺮ( و‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ﻟ)ٮﺤﺪ و( ا ٯٮﮑﻢ ﻋﻠﻄﻪ و ا ﻋﻠ)ﻤ(ﻮ ا ]ا[ ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻊ‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ا ﻟﻤٮـ)ٯـٮـ(ﮟ ۝ )و( ا د ا ا ٮﺮ ﻟٮ ﺳﻮ ]رﻩ[ )ٯـ(]ﻤٮـ[ﻬﻢ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪210‬‬
‫)ﻣ(ﮟ ٮٯﻮ ل ا ٮـ)ﮑ(ﻢ )ر( ا د ٮﻪ هﺪ ﻩ ا ٮﻤٮﺎ ٯﺎ ﻣﺎ‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ا ﻣٮﻮ ا ٯﺮ ا د ٮـ)ﻬﻢ( ا )ٮـ(ﻤٮـﺎ و ه]ﻢ[ ٮـﺴٮـٮـ)ﺴﺮ(‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫و ں ۝ و ا )ﻣ(ﺎ ا ﻟﺪ )ٮـ(ﮟ ٯﯽ ٯﻠﻮ ٮﻬﻢ ر ﺣﺲ ٯﺮ د ]ٮـ[)ﻬ(‪//‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ر ﺣﺮ ا ا ﻟﯽ )ر( ﺣﺴ]ﻬ[ﻢ و ﻣﺎ ٮﻮ ا و هﻢ ٯـ)ﺴٯـ(]ﻮ[ ں ۝ ا ]و[ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫)ٮﺮ( و ا ٮـﻬ)ﻢ( ]ٮـٯـ[‪]/ /‬ﻮ[ ں ٯﯽ ﮐﻞ ﻋﺎ م ﻣﺮ ﻩ ا و ﻣﺮ ٮٮﮟ ٮـﻢ‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫ﻻ ٮـ)ٮـ(ﻮ ٮﻮ ں و ﻻ ٮـ)ٮـ(ﺪ ﮐﺮ و ں )۝ و( ا د ا ا ]ٮـ[ﺮ )ﻟ(]ٮ[‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ﺳﻮ ر ﻩ ٮﻄﺮ ٮﻌﺼﻬﻢ ا ﻟﯽ )ٮﻌﺺ( هﻞ ٮﺮ ٮٮﺎ ﻣﮟ ا )ﺣ(‪//‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫ٯﺎ ٮـ]ﺼ[)ﺮ( ٯـ)ﻮ( ا ٯﺼﺮ ڡ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٯﻠﻮ )ٮـﻬ(‪ //‬د ﻟﮏ ٮـ)ﺎ ٮـ(‪]//‬ﻢ[‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫)ٯـ(ﻮ م ﻻ ٮٯٯﻬﻮ ں ۝ )و( ﻟٯﺪ ﺣﺎ )ﮐﻢ( ر ﺳﻮ ل ﻣٮـ)ﮑ(ﻢ‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫‪207‬‬
‫‪) In this line, the text starts almost halfway through the line. The reason‬‬
‫‪why is that the previous line begins close to the bottom of the folio and gradu-‬‬
‫‪ally moves upward, freeing space for another line beneath it.‬‬
‫‪208‬‬
‫‪. Perhaps‬ٮٮٯٯـ ‪ better than‬ٮٯٯـ ‪) Traces in the illegible part after lām match‬‬
‫‪the word is li-yafqahū.‬‬
‫‪209‬‬
‫‪) The distance between ḥā’ and dāl is large, suggesting another letter was‬‬
‫‪written between them. It is possible that the word is yaḥtadhirūn, which is syn-‬‬
‫‪onymous with yaḥdharūn.‬‬
‫‪210‬‬
‫‪) A shape resembling a medial ʽayn is visible above and slightly to the‬‬
‫‪right of mīm. This v-shaped figure may belong to a word the scribe had initially‬‬
‫‪written here.‬‬
[‫ ﺣﺮ ٮﺺ ]ﻋ[ﻠٮﮑﻢ ٮﺎ ﻟ]ﻤﻮ[ ﻣٮٮﮟ ر ]و‬211‫ﻋﺮ ٮﺮ )ﻋ(ﻠ]ٮـ[)ﻪ( ﻣﺎ ﻋٮٮﮑﻢ‬ 19

‫ )ٮـ(ﻮ ﻟﻮ ا ]ﻋ[)ٮـ(ﮏ ٯٯﻞ ﺣ)ﺴ(]ٮـ[ﻰ ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ‬/ / ‫ڡ ر ﺣٮـ]ﻢ[ ۝ ٯﺎ‬ 20
212
/ / ‫ ﮐﻠٮ‬/ / ‫)ا( ﻟﺪ ﯼ ﻻ ا ﻟ]ﻪ[ ا ﻻ ه)ﻮ( ﻋﻠٮﻪ‬ 21
[‫)ٮـ(]ﻮ‬// ‫ )ه(ﺪ ﻩ ﺣٮـﻤ)ﻪ( ﺳﻮ ر ﻩ ا‬/ /(‫ا ﻟﻌﺮ س ا ﻟ]ﻌ[)ـﻄ‬ 22
[‫)ٮـ(ﻪ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ٮـ)ﺴ(ﻢ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ﻟﺮ )ﺣ(]ﻤں‬ 23
//[‫ا ﻟﺮ ﺣٮﻢ آﻬٮـﻌﺺ د ﮐﺮ ]ر[ ﺣ]ﻤ[ﻪ ر ٮﮏ ﻋٮﺪ ﻩ )ر( ]آ‬ 24
‫} { )ٮﺎ( ا د ٮﺎ د ﯼ ر ٮﮏ ر آ]ﺮ[ ٮﺎ ٮﺪ ا ﺣٯـٮـ]ﺎ[ )۝( و ٯﻞ ر ٮﯽ‬ 25
{} (‫} { ا ﺳٮﻌﻞ ا ﻟﺮ ا س ﺳٮٮﺎ و ﻟﻢ ا ﮐﮟ ر ٮ ٮـ)ﺪ( ﻋﺎ )ﮎ‬ 26
{ }//‫ﺳٯٮﺎ ۝ و ﺣ)ٯـ(ٮ ا ﻟﻤﻮ ل ﻣﮟ و ]ر[ ا ﯼ ]و[ آ‬ { } 27
{ } ‫ ]ﻋٯـ[ﺮ ا )ٯـ(]ﻬ[)ٮ( ﻟﯽ ﻣﮟ ﻟﺪ ٮﮏ‬/ /[‫ ]ٮـ‬/ / (‫)ا‬ 213
{ } 28
Folio 22 B (Q 19.6 – 19.29)
{ } (‫ ٮ و ا ﺣﻌﻠﻪ ر ٮ ر ﺻ)ٮـ(ﺎ )۝‬//(‫{ ا )ل ٮـ(]ﻌ[)ٯـ‬ } 1

‫ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ر ﮐٮﺎ ۝ و ٮﺴﺮ ٮﻪ‬ 214
‫{ )ٯﺪ( و هٮٮﺎ ﻟﮏ‬ } 2
217
‫ﻰ ٮـ)ﮑ(ﻮ ں ﻟﯽ )ﻋ(ﻠﻢ‬// ‫ٯﻞ ر ٮ ا‬ 216
‫۝‬ 215
‫ﻤٮـﺎ‬//‫{)ﻪ( ﻣﮟ ٯـٮـ)ﻞ( ﺳ‬ } 3
‫)ٯـ(ﻞ ﮐﺪ ﻟﮏ ٯﻞ ]ر[ ٮـ)ﮏ( ه]ﻮ[ ﻋﻠﯽ‬ 218
‫{ ﻟ]ﮑ[ٮﺮ ﻋٮٮﺎ ۝‬ } 4
‫{)ﺣﻠ(ٯـ]ٮـ[ﮏ ﻣﮟ ٯٮﻞ و ﻟﻢ ٮﮏ ﺳﺎ ﯼ ]۝[ ٯﻞ ر ٮ ا‬ } 5
‫ﻞ ﺳﻮ ٮﺎ ۝‬//‫{ـﻞ ا ٮٮﮏ )ا ﻻ( ٮﮑﻠﻢ ا ﻟٮﺎ س ٮـﻠ)ٮ( ﻟ‬ } 6
211
) This word is probably ʽannatakum.
212
) There are traces that match the word rabb, but the traces before the pu-
tative rabb do not match wa-huwa, nor is there enough room for it.
213
) Writing before this point would have interfered with the text from the
previous two lines.
214
) It seems another letter, possibly ḥā’ or ʽayn, had initially been written in
place of lām.
215
) There is enough room between sīn and mīm for one letter. Moreover,
there are traces before the initial sīn that match a tooth. Either the word is not
samiyyan, or the scribe had initially written another word (such as shabīhan)
before replacing it with samiyyan.
216
) Considering the traces, the missing parts in lines 2 and 3 might have had
yā Zakariyyā innā and bi-Yaḥyā lam najʽal lahu respectively.
217
) It seems the scribe initially wrote walad here, but then erased it and
wrote ghulām instead.
218
) Considering the length of the physically missing part at the beginning of
the line, the text probably lacks the phrase wa-kānat imra’atī ʽāqiran.
‫ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻤ)ﺤ(ﺮ ٮ ا )و( ﺣ)ﻰ( ا ﻟ)ٮـ(ﻬﻢ ا ں ﺳٮﺤﻮ‬220//‫ ﺣﺮ ح )ﻋ(ﻠﻰ ٯـ)ﻮ( ﻣ‬219[‫} {]ﻢ‬ 7

‫ا ٮﮑﺮ ﻩ )و ﻋﺴٮـ(ﺎ )ٮـٮـﺤ(]ٮـ[)ﻰ( ا ﺣ)ﺪ( ا ﻟ)ﮑ(ٮـ)ٮ( ٮٯﻮ ﻩ و ﻋﻠﻤٮﻪ ا‬ 8
221
/ /‫ﻟ)ﺤ(ﮑﻢ ﺻٮٮﺎ ۝ ﺣﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﮟ ﻟﺪ ٮﺎ ]و[ )ر( آ)ﻮ( ﻩ و ﮐﺎ ں ٮٯٮﺎ ۝ و ٮﺮ ا ٮـ‬ 9
‫ٮﻮ ﻟﺪ ٮﻪ )و( ﻟﻢ ٮﮏ ﺣٮﺮ ا ]ﻋﺼ[ٮﺎ ۝ و ﻋﻠٮﻪ ا ﻟﺴﻠﻢ ٮﻮ م و ﻟﺪ‬ 10
[‫ٯﯽ ا ﻟﮑ]ٮٮ‬ 222
‫]ﻌٮ[ ﺣٮﺎ ۝ و ا د ﮐﺮ ا‬//‫و ٮـ)ﻮ( م ٮـ)ﻤﻮ( ٮ )و( ٮـ]ﻮ[ )م( ٮـ‬ 11
‫ﺎ )۝( )ٯـ(ﺎ )ٮـ(ﺤﺪ ٮ ﻣﮟ‬//‫ت ﻣﮟ ا هﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﮑٮﺎ ﺳﺮ ٯـ‬ 223
‫ﻣﺮ ٮﻢ ا د ا ٮـٮـﺒذ‬ 12
(‫ٯـ)ﺘﻤ(ﺜﻞ ﻟﻬﺎ ٮﺴﺮ )ا( ﺳ)ﻮ‬ 225
(‫)ﺎ‬// ‫ﺎ ا ﻟٮﻬﺎ ر و‬//[‫]ﻠ‬// (‫)ر‬ 224
‫)د( ]و[ )ٮـ(ﻬﻢ ﺣﺤ)ٮـ(ﺎ )ٯـ(ﺎ‬ 13
‫ا ]ٮـ[ﻰ ا ]ﻋ[)ﻮ( د ٮﺎ ﻟ)ﺮ( ﺣﻤﮟ ]ﻣٮـ[ﮏ ا ں ﮐٮٮ ٮٯٮﺎ ۝ ٯﻞ ا‬ 226
(‫)ﻠٮ‬/ / ‫ ۝‬/ / 14
‫ﻰ ]ٮـ[ﮑﻮ‬// ‫ ﻟﮏ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ز ﮐٮﺎ ۝ ٯﻠٮ ا‬227‫ ٮـ)ﮏ( ﻟﻨﻬﺐ‬// (‫ )ﺳ(]ﻮ[ )ل‬// ‫ﺎ ا )ٮـ(ﺎ‬/ / 15
‫ و ﻟﻢ ا ﮎ ٮﻌٮﺎ ۝ ٯﻞ ﮐﺪ ﻟﮏ‬//(‫ )ٮـﺴ‬/ /‫ ]ﻋ[ﻠﻢ ]و[ ﻟ)ﻢ ٮـﻤ(ﺴ‬//[‫]ں ﻟ‬ 16
‫ه)ٮـ(ﮟ ۝ و ﻟٮﺤﻌﻠﻪ ا ٮﻪ ﻟﻠٮﺎ س و ر ﺣﻤﻪ ﻣٮﺎ‬ 228
(‫)ﻪ‬//‫]ٯـ[)ﻞ( ر ٮﮏ و هﻮ ﻋﻠ‬ 17
‫)و( ]ا[ ﻣﺮ ا ﻣٯﺼٮﺎ ۝ ٯﺤﻤﻠٮ ٯﺎ ٮـﺘﺒﺬ ٮ ٮﻪ ﻣ)ﮑٮـ(ﺎ ٯﺼٮﺎ ۝‬ 18
‫ ا ﺣﺎ هﺎ ا ﻟﻤﺤﺺ ا ﻟﯽ ﺣﺪ ع ا ﻟٮـﺤﻠ)ﻪ( ٯـﻠ)ٮ( ٮﻠٮٮٮﯽ )ﻣ(ٮ‬//(‫)ٯـﻠﻤ‬ 19
219
) This word may be thumma.
220
) The traces after mīm are more similar to an initial or medial hā’ than a
final one. Perhaps the scribe first wrote a medial hā’ but then tried to change it
to a final hā’.
221
) The tooth-shaped letter is followed by an alif or a lām. After this letter
are some traces that are below the line and may belong to a third or fourth let-
ter, perhaps a final ḥā’ or ghayn (these traces do not seem to belong to the next
line). It is possible that the scribe initially wrote (part of) a word here and
erased it later, since both the tooth-shaped letter and the traces after it are paler
than the adjacent words. Alternatively, these traces may constitute a word (e.g.
balīgh). This second scenario is unlikely, however, since such a word should be in
the accusative, whereas the traces do not seem to include an accusative ending.
222
) This alif is probably a scribal error.
223
) There are traces above the second tooth that may belong to consonant-
224
) A small dash, such as appears in end-of-verse symbols or consonant-
distinguishing marks, is visible slightly to the right of fā’.
225
) This alif may be preceded by one or two letters.
226
) The traces before lām cannot belong to an initial qāf alone. They may be-
long to a fā’ and a qāf (in which case the word would be fa-qālat), or to a qāf and
an alif (in which case the word would be qālat, spelled with alif).
227
) There is a small chance that the dash above the first tooth is a smudge
rather than a consonant-distinguishing mark.
228
) Traces of a final yā’ are visible immediately after lām. It is not clear if
the scribe wrote ʽalayya and changed it to ʽalayhi or the other way around.
//‫ٯٮﻞ هﺪ ا ا ﻟ)ٮـ(]ﻮ[ م و ﮐٮٮ ٮﺴٮﺎ ﻣٮﺴٮﺎ ۝ )ٯـ(ٮـ]ﺪ[ ٮﻬﺎ ﻣﮟ ٮـﺤٮـﻬ‬ 20

‫ ٮﮏ ٮـﺤٮـ)ﮏ ﺳ(ﺮ )ٮـ(ﺎ ۝ و هﺮ ﯼ‬// (‫ا ﻻ ٮﺤﺮ ٮﯽ ٯﺪ ﺣﻌ)ﻞ‬ 229
/ / 21
‫ﮏ )ر( ﻃ)ٮـ(ﺎ ﺣﻨٮﺎ ۝ ]ٯـ[ﮐﺎ ﻟﯽ‬//‫ﻋﻠ‬ 230
‫ﺴٯـﻂ‬// //‫ﺤﻠ‬//‫ ]ﻟٮـ[ﮏ ٮﺤﺪ )ع( ا ﻟ‬// 22
‫ ]ٮـ[)ﮟ ﻣﮟ( ا ﻟ)ٮـﺴ(ﺮ ا ﺣﺪ ا ٯـ)ٯﻮ( ﻟﯽ‬//[‫ ]ﯼ[ ﻋ)ٮٮـ(ﺎ ۝ ٯـ)ﺎ( ﻣ)ﺎ( ]ٮـ‬//‫ ]و[ ٯـ‬//‫ ٮـ‬//[‫ ]ا ﺳ‬// 23
‫ا ﮐﻠﻢ ا ﻟٮﻮ ]م[ ا‬ 231
‫)ﮟ ﺻ(]ﻮ[ )ﻣﺎ( ]و ﺻﻤ[)ٮﺎ ﻟ(ﮟ‬/ / (‫]ﺪ ر[ )ٮ( ]ﻟ[)ﻠﺮ‬/ / 24
‫)ﺤﻤﻠﻪ ٯﻠﻮ( ا ٮـ)ﻤ(ﺮ ٮـ]ﻢ[ ﻟٯﺪ ا ﺗٮـﺖ‬// (‫ﺎ ]ٮـ[)ﺖ ٯﻮ( ]ﻣﻬ[)ﺎ‬// ‫ ۝‬/ / 25
{ } (‫]ﻮ[ )ا‬// (‫)ٮ( هﺮ ]و[ ں )ﻣﺎ( ﮐﺎ )ں( ا ٮﻮ ]ﮎ[ )ا ٮﺎ‬// (‫)ﺎ‬// [‫]ﺎ ۝‬/ / [‫]ﺎ‬/ /{ } 26
{ } [‫)ﺎ ۝ ٯﺎ ﺳﺮ( ٮ ا )ﻟﯽ( ]د‬/ / [‫ ]ا ﻣﮏ‬/ / [‫} { ]و ﻣﺎ‬ 27
Folio 23 A (Q 19.29 – 19.54)
{ } (‫ ]ٮـ[)ﺪ‬/ /(‫]ﻠﻮ[ } { )آ(]ٮڡ[ ٮـ)ﮑ‬/ / (‫ ا ﻟ]ﻤﻬ[)ﺪ‬232(‫د )ﯼ‬//{ } 1

233
{ } / /[‫]ﻠ‬/ /[‫ ﻟ]ﮑ‬/ /[‫ﺪ ]ا[ ﻟ]ﻠ‬//‫]ا[ )ٮﺎ( ﻋ‬ 2
{ } / / [‫ ]ﻩ‬/ / [‫ﮐﺎ اٮٮﻤﺎ آٮـ)ٮ( ]و[ ا ﻣﺮ ٮﯽ ]ٮﺎ‬ 3
{ }//[‫ ]ﺣ‬/ /[‫ٮﺎ ۝ و ٮﺮ ا ٮـ)ﻮ( ﻟ)ﺪ( ]ٮﯽ[ )و( ﻟ]ﻢ ٮـ[ﺤ)ﻌ(ﻠ]ٮـ‬// (‫د ﻣ)ٮ‬ 4
{ } / / (‫ ا )ﻣ(ﻮ ٮ )و‬/ /(‫ا ﻟ)ﺴ(ﻠﻢ )ٮـ(ﻮ )م و( ﻟﺪ ٮ ]و[ )ٮـ‬ 5
234
{ } ‫ﺴﻰ ا )ٮـ(ﮟ ﻣﺮ ٮﻢ ٯﻮ ل )ا( ﻟ]ﺤ[ٯ ا ﻟ)ﺪ( ﯼ ﮐﺎ ں‬//‫د ﻟ]ﮏ[ ﻋ‬ 6
‫ٮﻤٮﺮ و ں ﻣﺎ ]آ[ﺎ )ں( ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ا ں ٮٮﺤﺪ )و( ﻟ)ﺪ( ا ]ﺳ[)ٮـﺤ(ٮﻪ ا د ا ٯﺼﯽ‬ 7
229
) There are traces in the middle of this part that might belong to a lām.
There is also a long horizontal line with some traces above it – the line and the
traces match a final kāf.The word may be malak.
230
) It is not clear if sīn is preceded by a letter or not.
231
) There are no traces of a fā’ before the initial lām, and there is little free
space before lām.
232
) This word might be bi-dhī.
233
) The missing part has enough room for three words. Therefore, the puta-
tive lām preceding this part probably belongs to the verb jaʽalanī from verse 30
(not the one in verse 31). If we take the barely visible letters preceding this lām
to belong to the word al-kitāb, then it seems there is enough room between this
hypothetical al-kitāb and wa-jaʽalanī for another word. The text might have wa-
l-ḥikma after al-kitāb.
234
) Considering the presence of kāna, it is possible that the text has kāna l-
nāsu in addition to the standard text. Ubayy b. Kaʽb’s codex reportedly had this
phrase (al- Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 5:366).
‫ا ﻣﺮ ا ٯﺎ ٮﻤﺎ ٮٯﻮ ل ﻟﻪ ﮐﮟ ٯـٮـ]ﮑ[ﻮ ں ۝ ا ں ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ ر( ٮﯽ و ر‬ ‫‪8‬‬

‫ٮـ)ﮑ(ﻢ )ٯـ(ﺎ ﻋٮﺪ ]و[ ﻩ هﺪ ا ﺻﺮ ٮﻂ ﻣ)ﺴٮٯـ(ٮﻢ ۝ ٯﺎ ﺣٮﻠڡ ا ﻻ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ﺣﺮ ٮ ٮٮٮـ)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ ﻋﮟ ا ﻣﺮ هﻢ ٯﻮ ٮﻞ ﻟﻠﺪ ٮﮟ آ]ٯﺮ[ و ا )ﻣ(ﮟ ﻣﺴﻬﺪ‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ٮﻮ م ﻋﻄٮﻢ ۝ ا ﺳﻤﻊ ٮﻬﻢ و ا ٮﺼﺮ ٮﻮ )م ٮـ(ﺎ ٮﻮ ٮٮﺎ ﻟﮑﮟ ا‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ﻟﻄﻠ)ﻤ(ﻮ ں ا ﻟٮﻮ م ٯﯽ ﺻﻠﻞ ﻣٮـ)ٮـ(ﮟ ۝ ٯﺎ ٮﺪ ]ر[ )هﻢ( ٮﻮ م )ا ﻟ(ﺤ]ﺴ[ﺮ‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ﻩ ا د ٯﺼﯽ ا ﻻ ﻣﺮ و هﻢ ٯﯽ ﻋٯﻠﻪ و هﻢ ﻻ ٮﻮ ﻣٮـ]ﻮ[ ں ۝ ا‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫ٮﺎ ٮﺤﮟ ٮـ)ﺮ( ٮ ا ﻻ ر ص و ﻣﮟ ﻋﻠٮﻬﺎ و ا ﻟٮـ)ٮـ(ﺎ ٮﺮ ﺣﻌ)ﻮ( ں ۝ ]و[ ا ]د[‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫آ‪ //‬ٯﯽ )ا( ﻟ)ﮑ(ٮٮ ا ٮﺮ هٮﻢ ا ٮﻪ ﮐﺎ )ں( ﺻﺪ ٮٯﺎ ﻧٮٮﺎ ا د ٯﻞ ﻻ‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ٮﻪ ٮﺎ ٮٮ ﻟﻢ ٮﻌٮﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ٮﺴﻤﻊ و ﻻ ٮٮﺼﺮ ]و[ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ]ٮـ[)ﻌ(]ٮـ[ﻰ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫)ﻋ(ٮﮏ ﺳٮﺎ ۝ ٮﺎ ٮٮ ا ٮﯽ ٯﺪ ﺣﺎ ٮﯽ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻢ ٮﺎ ٮﮏ‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ٯﺎ ٮٮﻌٮﯽ ا )ه(ﺪ ﮎ ﺻﺮ ٮﻄﺎ ﺳﻮ ٮﺎ ۝ ٮﺎ ٮٮ ﻻ ٮﻌٮﺪ ا ﻟ]ﺴٮـ[)ﻄ(]ﮟ[‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫ا ں ا ﻟﺴٮﻄﮟ ﮐﺎ ں ﻟﻠﺮ ﺣﻤﮟ ﻋﺼٮﺎ ۝ ٮﺎ ٮٮ ا ]ٮـ[)ﻰ( ا ﺣ)ڡ( ا ں‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫ٮـ)ﻤﺴ(ﮏ ﻋﺪ ا ]ٮ[ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﺮ ﺣﻤﮟ ٯٮﮑﻮ ں ﻟﻠﺴٮﻄﮟ ]و[ ﻟٮﺎ ۝ )ٯﻞ(‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪/‬‬
‫‪236‬‬
‫)ﻟ(]ٮـ[)ﮟ( ]ﻟ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪235‬‬
‫‪)/‬ﮟ ا ﻟﻬ(‪]//‬ﻰ[ ]و[‬ ‫]ٮﺎ ٮﺮ[ )ه(]ٮﻢ[ )ا( ]ٮـ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫هﺤﺮ ٮﯽ ﻣﻠٮﺎ ۝ ٯﻞ ﺳﻠ]ﻢ[ ﻋﻠٮﮏ ﺳﺎ )ﺳ(ٮـﻌٯـ]ﺮ[ )ﻟﮏ(‬ ‫‪237‬‬
‫ﺣ‪]//‬ٮـ[ﮏ ]و ا[‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪) /‬ں( ‪)//‬ﮟ( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫ر ٮﯽ اٮﻪ ﮐﺎ ں ٮﯽ ﺣٯٮﺎ ۝ و ا ﻋٮﺮ ﻟﮑﻢ و ﻣﺎ )ٮـ(‪/‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫و ں )ا( ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( و ا د ﻋﻮ ا ر ٮﯽ )و( ﻋﺴﯽ ا )ں( ﻻ ا ﮐﻮ ں ]ٮـ[ﺪ )ﻋ(‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫ٮﯽ ﺳٯٮﺎ ۝ ٯﻠﻤﺎ ا ﻋٮﺮ ﻟﻬ‪) //‬و( ﻣﺎ ٮﻌٮﺪ و ں )ﻣ(ﮟ )د( و )ں( ‪//‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪] /‬ٮﺎ[ ﺳ)ﺤ(ٯ‪ 238‬و ٮﻌٯﻮ ٮ و ﮐﻼ ﺣﻌﻠٮﺎ ٮٮٮﺎ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻪ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫‪239‬‬
‫‪) /‬ﻟ(‪]/ /‬ﺎ[‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪) /‬ا( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪]/ /‬ﻠ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪//‬ﺪ ٯ )ﻋ(ﻠٮﺎ ۝ و ا د ﮐﺮ ٯـ)ﻰ( ا ﻟﮑٮـ)ٮ( ﻣﻮ ﺳﯽ ا ٮﻪ ﮐﺎ ں ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫‪235‬‬
‫‪) If this letter is wa-, then perhaps the sentence preceding it is not inter-‬‬
‫‪rogative. It might be yā Ibrāhīmu anta rāghibun ʽan ālihatī.‬‬
‫‪236‬‬
‫‪) This illegible part seems longer than needed for the standard text.‬‬
‫‪Traces of a horizontal line, visible at the beginning of this part (and even before‬‬
‫‪it, beneath la’in), might belong to a final yā’; yet the corresponding standard‬‬
‫‪text does not feature a final yā’.‬‬
‫‪237‬‬
‫‪ as well.‬ٯﺎ ‪) The traces conform to‬‬
‫‪238‬‬
‫‪) The word in the preceding illegible part may be bashsharnāhu.‬‬
‫‪239‬‬
‫‪) This line has more room than needed for the corresponding standard‬‬
‫‪text. Also, the traces do not match that text.‬‬
{} / / ‫ ]ٮٮﻪ[ ﻣﮟ ﺣٮـ} { ا ﻟﻄﻮ‬/ / [‫ ]و‬241/ / (‫ )ا‬/ / ‫۝ ا‬240 / /{ } 29

{} / / ‫]ﺎ[ ۝‬//[‫ ]ٮـٮـ‬/ / (‫ ﻣﮟ ر ﺣﻤٮٮﺎ )ا( ﺣﺎ ﻩ } {)ﺮ‬/ /‫و‬ 242
/ /{ } 30
Folio 23 B (Q 19.54 – 19.70)
{}[‫ ا ﺳﻤﻌٮﻞ ا ٮﻪ ﮐﺎ ں ﺻﺪ ٯ ا ﻟﻮ ﻋ]ﺪ‬/ /[‫{ ]ﻋ‬ } 1

244-243
‫)و آ(ﺎ ں ]ٮـ[ﺎ ]ﻣﺮ[ ا هﻠ]ﻪ[ ٮﺎ ﻟﺼﻠﻮ‬ ‫ ]و[ ا‬/ /{ } 2
‫]ﺎ[ )ں( ]ﻋٮﺪ[ ر ٮـ)ﻪ ﻣﺮ( ﺻٮﺎ ۝ و ا د آ)ﺮ( ٯﯽ‬/ / { } 3
‫)ﺎ( ۝ )و( ر ٯـﻌ)ٮـ(ﻪ ا‬//(‫{]ﺲ[ ا ٮـ)ﻪ( ﮐﺎ ں )ﺻ(]ﺪ[ ٮٯﺎ )ٮـٮـ‬ } 4
‫ﮟ ا ٮﻌﻢ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻋﻟ]ٮـ[ﻬﻢ‬// ‫ﮏ ا ﻟﺪ‬//‫ ]۝[ ا و ﻟ‬245‫ﺎ‬/ /{ } 5
‫ﺎ ]ﻣ[ﻊ ٮﻮ ح و )ﻣﮟ( د‬//‫] ﮟ[ )د( ]ر[ ٮﻪ ا د م و ]ﻣ[ﻤﮟ )ﺣﻤ(ﻠ‬//{ } 6
‫ﻞ ]و ﻣ[ﻤﮟ هﺪ ٮٮﺎ ]و[ )ا( ]ﺣ[ٮـ]ٮـ[)ٮٮـ(ﺎ ا د‬/ /[‫ر ٮﻪ ا ٮﺮ ه)ٮـ(ﻢ و )ا( ]ﺳﻤ‬ 7
‫)ﻬ(ﻢ ا ٮٮ ا ﻟ)ﺮ( ﺣ)ﻤ(ﮟ ﺣ)ﺮ( و ا )ﺳ(ﺤﺪ ا )و( ٮـ]ﮑٮـ[ﺎ ۝‬//‫ا ٮـٮـ)ﻠ(ﻰ ﻋﻠ‬ 8
‫ٯﺤﻠڡ ٮـ)ﻌ(]ﺪ[ ه]ﻢ[ ﺣﻠڡ ا ﺻ)ﻌ(ﻮ ا ا ﻟ]ﺼ[ﻠﻮ ٮ و ا ٮـٮـﻌ)ﻮ( ا‬ 9
‫]ٮـ[ﺎ ۝ ا ﻻ ﻣﮟ ٮﺎ ٮ و ]ا ﻣ[)ﮟ( و‬// ‫ا ﻟﺴﻬﻮ ٮ ٯـ]ﺴ[ﻮ ڡ ٮﻠٯﻮ ں‬ 10
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺻﻠﺤﺎ ٯﺎ )و( ﻟٮﮏ ٮﺪ ﺣﻠ)ﻮ( ں ا ﻟ)ﺤ(]ٮـ[ﻪ و ﻻ ٮﻄﻠﻤﻮ ں‬ 11
‫ﺳٮﺎ ۝ ﺣٮٮ ا ﻟﺤﻠﺪ ا ﻟٮﯽ و )ﻋ(ﺪ ر )ٮـ(ﮏ ﻋ)ٮـ(ﺪ ﻩ ا ں و ﻋﺪ‬ 12
‫]ٯـ[)ٮـﻬ(ﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ ا ﻻ ر ٮﮏ‬ (‫)ٮﮟ‬/ /(‫ )ﻣ‬// (‫)ﺎ‬/ / ‫ﻣ(ﺎ‬
247 246
‫)ٮ‬/ /‫]ر[ ٮﮏ )آ(ﺎ ں ٮﺎ ﻟ‬ 13
‫ ٯـ)ٮـ(ﻬﺎ ]ر[ ر‬//(‫ ٮﺴﻤﻌﻮ ں ٯٮـ)ﻬ(ﺎ ﻟﻌ)ﻮ( ا و ﻻ ٮﺎ ٮٮﻤﺎ )و( ﻟ)ﻬ‬/ / 14
240
) There is enough room between kāna (on the previous line) and the end-
of-verse marker for approximately two words.
241
) If the first word of the verse is innā, the following word could be a verb
the object of which is Moses.
242
) The text does not seem to have qarrabnāhu najiyyan. There might be an-
other phrase in its stead, for which see the previous footnote.
243
) The traces do not match either rasūlan or nabiyyan. Also, the missing
and illegible parts together have more room than is needed for the phrase wa-
kāna rasūlan nabiyyan.
244
) There is no trace of an end-of-verse marker after alif, and the proximity
of alif with the following letter suggests that perhaps there is no such marker
here.
245
) Some of the traces are consistent with ʽaliyyan.
246
) This word may be bi-l-ghayb.
247
) The letter before the tooth may be mīm. The word may be munʽimīn, or,
less likely, muttaki’īn.
‫ٮﺎ ۝ ]ٮـ[ﻠﮏ ٮﻮ ر ٮﻬﺎ )ﻣﮟ( ﻋٮﺪ ٮﺎ ﻣﮟ ﮐﺎ ں‬/ /[‫]ٯـ[ﻬ]ﻢ[ ٮﮑﺮ ﻩ و ]ﻋ‬ 15

‫]ﮟ[ ا )ٮـ(ﺪ ٮﮑﻢ و‬/ /‫ﮏ ﻟﻪ ﻣ‬// ‫ر‬ 248
[‫]ٮـ[)ٯـٮـ(ﺎ ۝ و ﻣﺎ ٮٮـ)ٮـ(ﺮ ل ا ﻻ ٮـ]ﺎ[ )ﻣ(]ﺮ‬ 16
(‫ ۝ ر ٮ )ا‬//‫ ﺣﻠٯﮑﻢ و ﻣﺎ ٮٮـ]ﮟ[ د ﻟﮏ و ﻣﺎ )آ(ﺎ )ں( ر ٮﮏ ٮـﺴٮـ‬/ / 17
[‫)ﺴ(]ﻤﻮ[ ٮ )و( ا ﻻ )ر( ص و ﻣ)ﺎ( ٮٮـ)ٮـ(ﻬ)ﻤ(ﺎ ٯﺎ ﻋٮـ)ﺪ( ﻩ و ا ﺻﻄ]ٮﺮ‬// 18
‫]ﻟﻌٮﺪ[ ٮـ]ﻪ[ )و( ﻻ )ٮـﺴ(ﺮ )ﮎ( ٮـ)ﻪ( هﻞ ٮـﻌﻠ)ﻢ( ﻟﻪ )ﺳ(ﻤ)ٮـ(ﺎ ۝ و ٮٯﻮ‬ 19
‫)ل( ]ا[ ﻻ ]ٮـﺴ[ﮟ ا د ا ﻣٮ و )آ(ٮٮ )ٮـ(ﺮ ٮﺎ و ﻋﻄﻤ)ﺎ( ا ٮﯽ ﻟﻤٮـ)ﻌ(ﻮ‬ 20
‫]ٮ[ ﺣ)ٮـ(ﺎ )۝( ا و ﻻ ٮـ)ٮـ(ﺪ ﮐﺮ ا ﻻ ٮـ)ﺴ(ﮟ ا ٮﺎ ﺣﻠٯٮﻪ ﻣﮟ )ٯٮﻞ( و‬ 21
‫]ﺤ[ﺴﺮ ٮـ)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ و )ﺳٮـ(ﻄ]ٮـٮـ[ﻬﻢ ﺣ)ﻮ( ل‬//‫ﻟ]ﻢ[ ٮﮏ )ﺳ(ٮﺎ ۝ ٯـ]ﻮ ر[ ٮﮏ ﻟ‬ 22
‫ )ﻋ(ﮟ ﻣﮟ ﮐﻞ ﺳٮـ]ﻌ[)ﻪ( ﻣﮟ ﮐﺎ )ں( ا ﺳﺪ )ﻋ(ﻠﻰ‬250/ /‫ )۝( ٮـ)ﻢ( ﻟٮـ‬249(‫)ٮﺎ‬//‫ ﺣ‬/ / 23
251
‫ﺎ‬//‫)ا ﻟﺮ ﺣ(]ﻤ[)ﮟ( ]ﻋ[)ٮـ(]ٮـ[ﺎ )۝ و( ﻟ]ٯـ[)ﺪ( ﻋﻠ]ﻤٮـ[ﺎ ا و ﻟٮﮑﻢ ٮﻬﺎ )و( ﺻﻠ‬ 24
‫ ں )ﻣ(]ٮـ[ﮑﻢ )ا( ﻻ و ]ر[ د )و( هﺎ و آ)ﺎ( ں ﻋﻠﯽ ر ]ٮﮏ[ ﺣٮﻤﺎ‬/ / 25
‫ ۝‬/ /‫]ٯٮـ[)ﻬ(ﺎ ]ﺣ[ٮـ‬ 253
/ /(‫]و[ ٮﺪ ر ا )ﻟ‬ 252
‫]ﻣٯـﺼٮـ[)ﺎ( ۝ )ٮﻢ( ]ٮـٮـ[)ﺤﻰ( ا ﻟ)ﻤٮٯـ(ٮٮﮟ‬ 26
‫وا‬
‫]ﮟ[ آٯـ)ﺮ و ا( ﻟﻠﺪ‬// ‫]ٮ ٯـ[ﺎ ل ا ﻟﺪ‬//(‫ )ٮٮـ‬254[‫]ٮﺎ‬//‫]د ا ٮٮـ[ﻠﻰ ﻋﻠٮـ)ﻬ(ﻢ ا ٮـ‬ 27
‫]ٮﻮ[ ا )ا( ٮٮﺎ )ﺣ(ٮﺮ )ﻣ(]ٯـﻤ[ﺎ و )ا( ﺣﺴﮟ ٮﺪ ٮﺎ ۝ )و( ]ﮐﻢ[ ا‬// [‫ ]ا‬/ / {} 28
{ } ‫)ﮟ( ٯـ)ﺮ ں هﻢ( ا ﺣﺴﮟ )ا( ٮٮﺎ و ر ]ٮـ[)ﺎ( ۝‬/ /‫ ٯٮـ‬//‫ﮑٮـ‬//(‫}{ )ه‬ 29
248
) This letter may be mīm instead.
249
) There are traces above the line after the initial ḥā’ that may belong to
consonant-distinguishing marks for the letter thā’.
250
) The traces after the tooth do not quite match ‫ ;ٮﺮ‬they may belong to the
grapheme ‫ٯﺮ‬. This word may thus be la-nufrighanna, yielding, “We shall surely
pour out from every sect of them the most obstinate ones in rebellion against
the Beneficient.”
251
) The last grapheme does not seem to be an independent predicate. There-
fore, the wāw preceding it probably is not conjunctive.The wāw and the following
grapheme probably form a single word, waṣliyyan or, less likely due to lesser
conformance to the rhyme, wiṣāliyyan. It is noteworthy that the corresponding
word in the standard text puzzled the readers, who read it variously as ṣiliyyan,
ṣaliyyan or ṣuliyyan. Ibn Mujāhid said that this word was not known to him at
all (al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 5:384).
252
) The presence of two teeth before nūn instead of one is a scribal error.
253
) There is not enough room after lām for the word al-ẓālimīn. Considering
the remaining traces, the word here may be al-kuffār.
254
) In the middle of the illegible part, there are traces above the line that
may belong to consonant-distinguishing marks for the letter tā’.
Folio 7 A (Q 22.15 – 22.26)
{ } [‫{ ں ﻟﮟ ٮٮﺼﺮ ]ﻩ[ )ا( ]ﻟﻠﻪ[ ٯﯽ ]ا‬ } 1

[‫ ﻟ]ٮٯـﻄﻊ‬/ / ‫{]ٮ[ )ا( ﻟﯽ ا ﻟ]ﺴ[ﻤﺎ‬ } 2
‫{ ]ﻣ[ﺎ ]ٮـﻌ[)ٮﻂ( ﮐﺪ ﻟ]ﮏ[ ﺣ]ﻌ[ﻠ)ٮـ(ﻬﺎ‬ } 3
‫{]ﻬ[)ﺪ ﯼ( ﻣﮟ ٮﺮ ٮﺪ ا ں ا )ﻟ(ﺪ ٮﮟ‬ } 4
[‫ )و ا ﻟ(]ﻤﺤﻮ‬/ / [‫)ﺼ(]ﺮ‬//‫ و ا ﻟ‬/ /‫{ ا ﻟﺼٮـ‬ } 5
‫ ا ں‬255//‫)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ ٯﯽ د ٮٮـﻬ‬//(‫{ ٮٯﺼﻞ ]ٮـ[)ٮـ‬ } 6
257
/ /(‫ا )ں( ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ ٮـ)ﺤ‬ 256
‫ )و( ا‬/ / [‫{ ا ﻟ]ﻢ‬ } 7
‫{ ر ص و ا )ﻟ(]ﺴ[)ﻤﺲ( و )ا( ﻟ]ٯـﻤ[ﺮ‬ } 8
(‫)و ا( ﻟ)ﻄٮـﺮ( و )ا( ﻟﺤٮـ)ﺎ ل‬
259
//[‫ )ﻟ(]ﺴﺤ‬//{
258
} 9
260
/ / ‫ ا‬/ /(‫{ ﺣٯ ﻋﻠٮـ)ﻪ ا ﻟ‬ } 10
‫)ﻞ( ﻣﺎ‬//[‫)ا( ں ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ ٮـ]ٯـ‬ 261
[‫ ]م[ ﻟ]ﻪ‬//‫ﮑ‬//{ } 11
/ / ‫ ]ٯﺎ[ ﻟﺪ‬//(‫{)ﺣ(]ٮـﺼ[)ﻤﻮ( ا ٯﯽ )ر ٮـﻬ‬ } [‫{]ﺪ‬ }‫ٮـ‬ 12
// ‫ٮﺼٮ ٯـ)ﻮ( ]ٯ[ ر‬ 262
‫{ ﻣﮟ ]ٮـ[ﺎ ر‬ } (‫ﮐٯﺮ ]و ا[ )ٯـﻄ(]ﻌ[)ٮ‬ 13
‫ د‬//(‫)ﻄﻮ ٮﻬﻢ( و ا ﻟﺤ)ﻠ‬// (‫ } {)ﻪ( ﻣﺎ )ٯﯽ‬/ /{ } (‫]ﻤ[ٮـ)ﻢ‬//‫ )ا( ﻟ‬/ /(‫)ﺳ‬ 14
‫ ا )ں( ]ٮـﺤ[ﺮ )ﺣ(]ﻮ[ ا‬263‫ ا‬/ /(‫ ]ا[ ه)ﻤ‬/ / ‫ ۝ ا‬//(‫ ﻣﮟ ﺣﺪ )ٮـ‬/ /‫و ﻟﻬ)ﻢ( ﻣ‬ 15
[‫ ا ]ٮ‬//(‫ ٯﻮ ا )ﻋ‬/ / ‫ﻣٮـﻬ)ﺎ( ﻣﮟ ﻋﻢ ا ﻋٮﺪ و ا ٯٮـ]ﻬ[ﺎ‬ 16
/ /[‫ )ا( ]ﻣٮﻮ[ ا و ]ﻋﻤ‬/ /(‫ )ا ﻟ‬/ /{ }[‫ﻟﺤﺮ ]ٮـ[)ٯ( ]۝[ ا )ں( ]ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮـ‬ 17
[‫]ﮟ[ ٮـﺤٮـ]ﻬﺎ[ ا )ﻻ( ٮـﻬ]ﺮ[ ٮﺤﻠﻮ ]ں‬// ‫ ٮﺤﺮ ﯼ‬/ /[‫ )ﺣ(]ٮـ‬/ /[‫ا ]ا[ ﻟ]ﺼ‬ 18
/ /(‫]ﻮ[ )و( ﻟٮـ)ﺴﻬﻢ ٯـ‬// ‫ و ﻟﻮ‬/ /‫)ﻣ(ﮟ د ه‬ 264
/ /[‫ٯـ)ٮـ(ﻬا ﻣ)ﮟ ا( ]ﺳ‬ 19
255
) This word may be dīnihim.
256
) This word may be taraw/yaraw.
257
) The last letter may be dāl or bā’. The word may be yukhbitu. Alterna-
tively, it is possible that the scribe mistakenly wrote ‫ ٮﺤﺴﺪ‬instead of ‫ٮﺴﺤﺪ‬.
258
) This word may be al-shajar.
259
) Considering the visible words on lines 8, 9, and 10, the missing part on
this line may contain the nouns al-nujūm and al-dawābb as well as an additional
item.
260
) The traces here match an isolated rā’, but could also represent the be-
ginning of an isolated bā’.
261
) The text may be fa-lā mukrima lahu instead of fa-mā lahu min muk-
rimin.
262
) There are traces after rā’ that might belong to a wāw.
263
) The text may be idhā hammū instead of the standard kullamā arādū.
264
) There are greenish traces here that may belong to an isolated wāw or rā’.
[‫ ]ا‬// ‫ ﻃٮـ]ٮ[ ﻣﮟ )ا( ﻟٯﻮ ل )و( هﺪ‬/ /[‫ ۝ )و هﺪ و ا( ]ا ﻟ‬/ / (‫ﺣ)ﺮ‬ 20

/ / [‫ﮟ آ)ٯـ(ﺮ ]و[ ا ]و‬// [‫ )و ا( ﻟ]ﺪ‬/ /(‫ا ﻟﯽ ﺻﺮ ط ا ﻟ)ﺤ‬ 21
/ /[‫ )ا( ]ﻟ‬// (‫ )ا( ﻟ)ﺤﺮ‬//(‫]ﻞ[ ا ﻟ]ﻠ[ﻪ )و ا( ﻟﻤ]ﺴ[)ﺤ‬/ /[‫]ﻋﮟ ﺳ‬ 265
‫وا‬ 22
/ /(‫ )و ا ﻟ‬/ /[‫]ﮑ‬//(‫ ﺳﻮ ا )ٯـ(ٮـ)ﻪ ا ﻟ‬/ /(‫]ﻪ[ )ﻟ‬/ /[‫]ﻌ‬// 23
(‫)ﮟ( ]ﻋﺪ[ ا )ٮ‬// ‫]ﺪ[ )ٯـ(ﻪ‬// ‫ د ]ٯـ[)ٮﻪ ٮـ(ﺎ )ﻟﺤﺪ ٮـ(ﻄﻠﻢ‬/ / ‫)ﻣ(ﮟ‬ 24
‫ )ﻻ( ٮﺮ ه)ٮـ(ﻢ ﻣﮑ]ﮟ[ ا ﻟٮـ)ٮـ(ٮ‬/ / (‫ ]ٮـ[ﻮ )ا‬// ‫ و ا‬/ /(‫)ا ﻟ‬ 25
/ /[‫]ﻄ‬//[‫ ]ﻟ‬/ /(‫ ]ٮـ[)ٮـ‬//[‫ﻃ]ﻬ‬ 266
{ } ‫ ]ﮎ[ ٮﯽ ]ﺳ[)ﺎ( ﯼ و‬//(‫ا ں )ﻻ ٮـﺴ‬ 26
{ } / /[‫]ﺤ‬/ /[‫ )ا( ]ﻟ‬/ /(‫و ا ﻟﻌﮑٯٮﮟ و )ا ﻟ(ٯـ]ٮـﻤ[ٮﮟ و )ا ﻟ‬ 27
Folio 7 B (Q 22.27 – 22.39)
{ } ‫ )ﻟٮﺎ( ]س[ )ٮـ(]ﺎ ﻟﺤ[)ﺢ( ٮﺎ‬/ / [‫]ﻰ‬/ / [‫ ]ں‬/ / 1

{ }‫آ)ﻞ( ٯـ)ﺢ( ]ﻋﻤ[)ٮٯ( ۝ )و( ﻟ‬ 267
‫ﮟ‬// (‫ ]ٮـ[)ٮﮟ‬/ / 2
{ } ‫ )و( ا ا‬//[‫)و( ﻟ)ٮـ(ﺪ ]آ‬ 268
‫ﺪ و )د( ٮ‬/ / 3
{ }[‫]ﻬ‬//‫)ﻮ( ا ﻣ‬//[‫]ﻬ[ٮﻤﻪ )ا( ﻻ ٮﻌﻢ )و ﻟ(]ٮـﮑ‬// ‫ﻣﮟ‬ 4
{ } [‫۝ و ﻟ)ٮـ(ٯـ)ﺼﻮ( ا ٮٯٮﻬﻢ ]و‬ 269
[‫]ﻟٯٯٮﺮ‬ 5
{ }/ /(‫ﺎ )ﻟٮـ(ٮٮ ا )ﻟﻌ(ٮٮٯ ۝ )د ﻟ‬// ‫)ٯﻮ( ا‬ 6
{ } ‫ ا ﺣﻠٮ‬// ‫ٯـﻬ]ﻮ[ ﺣٮﺮ ﻟﻪ )ﻋٮـ(ﺪ ر ٮﻪ‬ 7
{ }(‫ )ﺣ‬//(‫)ٮﻮ ا ا ﻟ‬//(‫ٮـ)ٮـﻠ(ﻰ ]ﻋ[ﻠٮـﮑﻢ )ٯـ(ﺎ )ﺣٮـ‬ 8
{ }‫)ٯﻮ( ل ا )ﻟﺮ( و ر ۝ ﺣ)ٮٯـ(ﺎ ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻋ‬ 9
{ } (‫]ﻣ[)ﮟ‬ 270
‫ٮﺴﺮ )ﮎ( ]ٮـ[ﺎ ﻟﻠﻪ )ٯـﮑ(ﺎ )ٮـﻤ(ﺎ )ٮـﺤ(ﺮ‬ 10
{ }(‫ٮﻪ( ا ]ﻟ[ﺮ )ٮﺢ( ]ﻣ[ﮟ ﻣﮑ)ﮟ‬ 271
‫ا و ٮـ)ﻬﻮ ں‬ 11
{ } (‫]ﺳ[ﻌٮﺮ ا )ﻟ(ﻠ)ﻪ ٯﺎ( ٮـ)ﻬ(ﺎ ﻣ)ﮟ( ]ٮٯﻮ[ ﯼ )ا‬ 12
[‫{ )ا( ﻟٮٮٮ ]ا‬ }[‫)ٯـ(]ٮـ[)ﻬ(ﺎ ﻣ)ٮٯـ(ﻊ ا ﻟﯽ ا ﺣﻞ ﻣ)ﺴﻤ(ﻰ ٮﻢ ﻣ]ﺤ‬ 13
265
) The text may have wa-ṣaddū instead of wa-yaṣuddūna.
266
) The hole in the parchment in front of wa- seems to have been there al-
ready, because the lower hand avoided it.
267
) The letter preceding nūn may be mīm or ʽayn.
268
) This word may be maʽdūdāt.
269
) Considering the words on lines 2–5, the text may be wa-li-yashhadū
manāfiʽa lahum fī ayyāmin maʽdūdātin wa-li-yadhkurū sma llāhi ʽalā mā
razaqahum min bahīmati l-anʽāmi wa-li-ya’kulū minhā wa-li-yuṭʽimū l-bā’isa l-
faqīra.
270
) This word may be yakhirru.
271
) The presence of nūn instead of yā’ might be a scribal error.
‫{ ٮـﺴ)ﮑ(ﻮ ﻩ‪) 272‬ٮﺪ(‬ ‫‪}/‬‬ ‫ﻟﻌٮٮٯ )۝( و )ﻟﮑ(ﻞ ا ﻣ‪]/ /‬ﻌ[‪)/ /‬ﺎ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫آ]ﺮ[ و ں ا ﺳﻢ ا ﻟ)ﻠﻪ( ]ﻋ[ﻠﻰ ]ﻣ[ﺎ ]ر ر[ ٯـ)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ ﻣﮟ ٮﻬٮﻤﻪ ا )ﻻ(‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫)و( ا ﻟﻬﮑﻢ ا )ﻟ(ﻪ ]و[ )ﺣﺪ ٯـ(ﻠ]ﻪ[‬ ‫‪273‬‬
‫)ٮـ(]ﻌ[)ﻢ( ]و[ ا ﻣ)ٮـ(ﮑ)ﻢ( ا ﻣﻪ ]و ﺣ[}{ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫ٯﺎ ﺳ)ﻠﻤﻮ( ا و ٮﺴﺮ ا ﻟﻤﺨٮـ)ﺘٮﮟ ۝( ا ﻟ} {)ﮟ( ا ]د[ )ا( ]د[ ‪]/ /‬ﺮ[ ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫‪) //‬ﺣ(ﻠٮ )ٯـ(ﻠ)ﻮ( ‪)//‬ﻬ(‪ //‬و ا ﻟ)ﺼ(ٮﺮ ٮﮟ ﻋﻠﯽ } { )ا( ﺻ)ٮـﻬ(ﻢ و ا ﻟﻤٯـ)ٮـ(ﻤٮﮟ ۝‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫)ا( ]ﻟﺼﻠﻮ[ ﻩ )و ﻣﻤ(ﺎ ‪ / /‬ٯٮـ)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ )ٮٮـ(ٯـ)ٯـ(ﻮ )ں( ]۝[ )و( ا ﻟٮﺪ ں )ﺣ(ﻌﻠٮـ)ﻬ(ﺎ ﻟﮑﻢ‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫‪274‬‬
‫ﻣﮟ ﺳ]ﻌٮﺮ[ ا ﻟﻠﻪ )ٯـ(ﺎ د ﮐﺮ و ا )ا( ‪)/ /‬ﻢ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ )ﻋ(ﻠ‪)//‬ﻬ(ﺎ ﺻﻮ )ٯـ(ﮟ‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫ٯﺎ د ا و ﺣٮٮ ‪]/ /‬ٮـ[ﻮ ٮﻬﺎ ]ٯـ[ﮑ)ﻟ(]ﻮ[ )ا( ﻣٮﻬﺎ )و( ا ﻃﻌﻤ)ﻮ( ا ا ﻟ)ٯـ(‪//‬ﻊ‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫)و ا( ﻟ)ﻤ(]ﻌ[‪]//‬ﺮ[ ﮐﻤﺎ ]ﺳ[)ﺤ(‪) //‬ه(ﺎ ﻟ)ﮑ(ﻢ ﻣﮟ ٯٮﻞ ﻟﻌﻠ)ﮑ(]ﻢ ٮـﺴ[)ﮑ(ﺮ و ں ۝‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪275‬‬
‫)ا( ں )ا ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ ﻻ ٮٮـ]ﻠ[ﻪ ﻟﺤﻮ ﻣ)ﻬﺎ( و ﻻ ]د[ ﻣﻮ هﺎ و ﻟﮏ‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫]ٮٮـ[ﻠﻪ ا ﻟٮٯﻮ ﯼ )ﻣ(‪//‬ﮑ)ﻢ( ٯـﮑ)ٮـ(‪ //‬و ا ا )ﻟ(]ﻠ[)ﻪ ﻋ(ﻠﻰ )ﻣ(ﺎ ه]ﺪ[ ا ﮐﻢ‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪) //‬ﺳ(ﺤﺮ ﻟﮑﻢ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﺴ)ﻤ(ﺎ و ا )ﻻ( ر ص و ٮـ]ﺴ[‪ //‬ا )ﻟ(ﻤ)ﺤﺴ(ٮـ)ٮـ(ﮟ ۝‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫ٯﻊ ﻋﮟ ا ﻟﺪ ٮـ)ﮟ ا( ]ﻣ[ٮﻮ ]ا[ ا ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪276‬‬
‫]ا[ ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ]ٮﺪ[ } {‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫ﻻ ٮﺤٮ ﮐﻞ ]ﺣ[ﻮ ا ]ں[ آٯـ)ﻮ( ر ۝ و ا د ]ں[ )ﻟ(ﻠﺪ )ٮﮟ(‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪277‬‬
‫‪)/ /‬ﻠ(‪) //‬ں( ]ٯـ[ﻰ ]ﺳ[)ٮـ(‪ / /‬ا )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫)‪Folio 31 A (Q 12.17 – 12.20‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ ]ا[ ‪]//‬ٮ ٮﻤﻮ[ }‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{‬ ‫‪]/‬ﺪ[ ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫{ )و ﻩ( ﻋ]ﻠ[‪) / /‬ٯـﻤ(‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪]/‬ﮑﻢ[ )ا ﻣ(ﺮ ا }‬ ‫{ )ﻟ(]ٮ[ ﻟ]ﮑﻢ[ ا ‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪] /‬ﻋ[)ﻠﻰ( ]ﻣﺎ[ )ٮـﺼ(]ٯـ[)ﻮ( ‪] //‬۝[ )و( }‬ ‫{ ‪) / /‬ا ﻟ(‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ر( ﺳ‪)//‬ﻮ ا( و ر د ه}‬ ‫‪278‬‬
‫)ﻋﻠٮـ(‪ //‬ٮـﻌ]ﺺ[ )ا( ﻟ]ﺴ[‪) / /‬و ا‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{‬ ‫د ﻟ]ﻰ[ )د( ﻟ)ﻮ( ‪ / /‬و ٯـ)ﻞ( ٮٮـ)ﺴ(‪] //‬ﻰ هﺪ[ )ا( ]ﻋﻠﻢ[ و ا }‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٮﺼﻌﻪ و )ا( ﻟ]ﻠﻪ[ ﻋﻠ‪//‬ﻢ ٮـﻤ)ﺎ( ٮٯﻌﻠﻮ}{ں ۝ و ﺳﺮ و }‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪272‬‬
‫‪) The text here may be mansakan hum nāsikūhu.‬‬
‫‪273‬‬
‫‪) The word following ummatun may be wāḥidatun.‬‬
‫‪274‬‬
‫‪). Alternatively, it‬ﺻﺎﻓﻨﺔ ‪ (pl. of ṣāfina‬ﺻﻮاﻓﻦ ‪) This word is probably ṣawāfina‬‬
‫‪, or a scribal error for ṣawāfiya or ṣawāfī‬ﺻﻮاﻓﻴﺎ ‪, ṣawāfiyan‬ﺻﻮاف ‪may be ṣawāfin‬‬
‫‪. See al-Khaṭīb, al-Muʽjam, 6:115–7.‬ﺻﻮاﻓﻲ‬
‫‪275‬‬
‫‪) The absence of nūn is probably a scribal error.‬‬
‫‪276‬‬
‫‪ seems damaged.‬ٮﺪ ‪) The area after‬‬
‫‪277‬‬
‫‪) The text here seems to be yuqātilūna fī sabīli llāhi.‬‬
‫‪278‬‬
‫‪) The alif might be connected to the previous letter, in which case the‬‬
‫‪word would be fa-arsalū instead of wa-arsalū.‬‬
Folio 31 B (Q 12.17 – 12.31)
{ }/ /{ } 1
{ }(‫ )۝‬/ /[‫ ا ﻟﺼ)ﺪ ٯـ(]ٮـ‬/ /[‫ ]ﻣ‬/ /‫ ه‬/ / { } 2
{ } (‫]ﻪ[ )آ(]ٮﺪ[ آ)ﮟ ا‬// (‫{ )ٯﻞ ا‬ } 3
{ }[‫)ـﺪ( ]ٮٮـ‬// (‫]ٯـ[ﺮ )ﯼ‬/ /[‫{ ]ص[ )ﻋﮟ( ه)ﺪ ا و ا( ]ﺳ‬ } 4
{ } [‫ )ٯـ(]ﻞ[ ٮﺴﻮ )ﻩ( ﻣﮟ ا )هﻞ( ا ﻟﻤﺪ ]ٮـ[ٮـ]ﻪ‬// (‫{ ]ﮟ[ )۝‬ } 5
(‫)ﻰ‬/ /‫ )ا( ٮﺎ ﻟٮﺮ ٮـﻬ‬281‫)ﻬ(ﺎ‬//‫ ٯٮـ‬280[‫ٯـ)ﺪ ﺳ(ﻌ)ٯـ(]ﻬﺎ[ )ﺣ(]ٮ‬279 / /{ } 6
‫]ه[ﮟ ا ر ﺳﻠٮ ا‬ 282
‫ ﻣﮑﺮ‬/ /[‫ )ﻣ(]ٮٮـ[)ﮟ( ]۝[ )ٯﻠﻤﺎ ﺳﻤ(]ﻌ‬// { } 7
(‫)ﻞ‬/ / (‫)ٮ‬// ‫ و ا‬//(‫ )ﻣٮـﮑ‬/ /(‫ ﻟ)ﻬ‬/ /‫ )و(} { ﺣ)ﻌ(ﻠ‬/ /
283
{ } 8
(‫)ﻠٮ‬/ / (‫} {)ﺎ‬/ /
284
{ } {} { } 9
Folio 32 A (Q 12.111 – 18.1–5)
{ } (‫{]ﺎ[ ٮٯٮﺮ )ﯼ‬ } 1

{ }// [‫{ ا )ﻟ(]ﮑٮٮ‬
285
} 2
{ }[‫ )ﻩ( ٮـ)ﻮ( ﺳ]ڡ‬// (‫{ ]ﺳ[)ﻮ‬ } 3
{ }(‫ٮﺴﻢ )ا( ﻟﻠ)ﻪ ا ﻟﺮ( ﺣ)ﻤ(ﮟ )ا ﻟ‬ 4
{ } ‫ا )ٮـ(ﺮ ]ل[ )ا ﻟﮑٮٮ ﻋ(ﻠ)ﻰ ﻋٮﺪ( ﻩ‬ 5
{ }/ /(‫]ﺎ[ ﺳﺪ ٮﺪ )ا ﻤ(ﮟ )ﻟ‬/ / ‫ ]ٮـ[ﺎ‬// (‫)ﺪ‬/ /(‫)ﻟ‬ 6
{ }‫)ا( ]ﻟﺼ[)ﻠﺤ(]ٮ[ )ا ں( ﻟ‬ 286
/ / 7
279
) The space between al-madīna in the previous line and qad in the present
line is too small for the corresponding standard text. Perhaps the phrase
turāwidu fatāhā ʽan nafsihi is absent.
280
) In addition to the traces that may belong to the word ḥubb, there is a
small horizontal line slightly above the line, near the end of the word. The func-
tion of this line is not clear. It may belong to a letter initially written but subse-
quently erased.
281
) The text may be qad shaghafahā ḥubbu fatāhā.
282
) The initial mīm does not seem to be preceded by a tooth.
283
) The area preceding this point appears empty, perhaps because writing
here would have interfered with the previous line.
284
) The area before this point may be empty, perhaps because writing here
would have interfered with the previous line.
285
) The text might have tafṣīl al-kitābi instead of tafṣīla kulli shay’in.
286
) The first letter in this illegible area might be an initial ʽayn, and the last
letter may be alif.The text may be ʽamilū instead of yaʽmalūna.
{ }‫ ]ا ٮـ[)ﺪ( ا ۝ و )ﻟ(ٮٮـ‬/ /{ } 8
{ } ‫ﮐٮﺮ ٮ‬ 287
//{ }/ /{ } 9
{ }/ /[‫]ٯـ‬ 288
(‫)ﺎ‬/ /{ } 10
Folio 32 B (Q 18.15 – 18.18)
{ }[‫{ ﮐﺪ ٮـ]ﺎ‬ } 1
{ } [‫{]د[ و ں ا )ﻟ(]ﻠﻪ‬
289
} 2
{ }‫{)ﻢ( ﻣ)ﮟ( ر ﺣﻤٮـ‬ } 3
{ } [‫)ﻤ(]ﺲ‬/ /‫{)ﺮ( ﯼ ا ﻟ‬ } 4
{ } ‫ا ﻋﺮ ٮٮ‬ 290
‫{ )و( ا د‬ } 5
{ }[‫{ )ٯﺤﻮ ﻩ ٮٮﮟ( د ﻟﮏ د ]ﻟﮏ‬ } 6
(‫{ ﻟﻠﻪ )ٯـﻬ(ﻮ ا ﻟﻤ)ﻬ(ٮـ)ﺪ و ﻣﮟ‬ } 7
‫و ﻟٮﺎ ﻣﺮ ﺳﺪ ا ۝ و‬ 291
‫{ د و ٮﻪ‬ } 8
‫]ﻢ د ا[ )ٮ ا( ﻟٮـﻤٮـ)ﮟ( و‬/ /‫{ ر ٯـ)ﻮ د( ٮٯـﻠ‬ } 9
[‫ ﺻ]ٮﺪ‬//(‫{)ـﻬﻢ( ٮـﺴ]ﻂ[ )د ر ﻋٮﻪ( ٮﺎ )ﻟ‬ } 10
‫ } { )و( ﻟﻤﻠٮٮ‬/ / [‫{ ﻟﻮ ﻟٮٮ ]ﻣ[ٮـ)ﻬ(]ﻢ‬ } 11
287
) The space available between li-yundhira from the previous line and the
present point is too small for the corresponding standard text. The phrase mā
lahum bihi min ʽilmin wa-lā li-ābā’ihim may be missing.
288
) If the preceding alif belongs to the word kadhiban, it should be noted
that there is no trace of an end-of-verse marker after alif, which is very close to
the letter that follows it.
289
) The particle illā is missing before allāh. Perhaps the text has min dūni
llāhi instead of illā llāha.
290
) Pale traces of two other letters are visible here: a dāl (after wāw), an alif
(immediately before dāl). Perhaps the scribe initially wrote ‫ د ا‬here, forgetting
the initial alif of idhā, but realized his mistake, deleted these two letters and
wrote idhā again.
291
) The text seems to have min dūnihi in addition to the standard text.
Folio 13 A (Q 16.26 – 16.37)
292
/ /‫ ٮـ‬/ /(‫)ﻤ‬/ /(‫ )ں( ۝ و )ٮﻮ م ا ﻟ‬/ /[‫]ٮ[ )ﻻ( ]ٮـ‬//‫ ﺣ‬/ /{ } 1
‫ )ﻟ(]ﺪ[ ٮﮟ‬/ / /
294
/ 293
[‫]ﻮ‬//[‫]ٯـ‬/ / [‫]ﻢ‬/ /[‫ ]آ‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬/ /(‫ )ا ﻟ‬/ / (‫)ﺎ‬/ / (‫ ]ﺳ[)ﺮ‬/ /[‫ ]ٮـ‬/ / 2
/ / ‫ د‬/297 296
/ ‫ ا‬/ / ‫)و( ا ﻟ]ﻌ[ﻠ)ﻢ( ا‬ 295
/ / (‫]ا و[ ٮـ)ﻮ‬ 3
(‫]ﻠ[ﻤ)ﻰ‬/ /(‫ )ﻟﻤﻠٮـﮑ‬/ /[‫ ٮﮟ )۝( ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻠ)ٯـ(]ٮـﻬ‬/ /(‫ ]ا[ )ﻟ‬/ / [‫ ]م‬/ /
298
4
[‫ ٮـﻠ]ﻰ[ )ا( ]ں‬302(‫ )ا‬/ / (‫)ﻞ‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬301/ / (‫ )ﻣﺎ‬300‫ﻠﻢ‬/ /‫ ا ﻟ‬299/ /‫ ٮـ‬/ /(‫)ا( ٮـ)ٯـ‬ 5
(‫ ]ٮﻮ[ )ٮ‬// ‫ ٯﺎ )د( ﺣ)ﻠ(ﻮ ا‬// (‫ )ں‬//(‫ ﺣ]ٮٮـ[)ﺮ ٮـﻤ(ﺎ )ﮐٮٮﻢ( ٮـﻌ)ﻤﻠ‬/ / 6
‫ﻞ ﻟﻠﺪ‬//(‫ )و ٯـ‬// (‫ﮑٮـ)ﺮ( ٮـ)ﮟ‬/ /[‫ ا ]ﻟ‬// (‫)ﻣٮﻮ‬ 303
[‫]ﺲ‬/ /(‫)ﻬﺎ ﺣ(ﻠ)ﺪ( ٮﮟ )ٯـ‬/ /[‫)ٮﻢ( ]ٯـ‬/ /{ } 7
/ /(‫)ﻋﻤ‬ 304
/ /‫ )ا( ﻟ‬/ /[‫ ]ٮٯﻮ ا[ )ﻣﺎ( د ]ا[ ا ٮﺮ )ل ر( ٮﮑﻢ )ٯـ(ﻠ]ﻮ[ ا ]ﺣ‬/ / 8
292
) If the visible mīm is part of the word al-qiyāma, it is rather distant from
the lām of the article.
293
) The putative wāw and qāf do not seem to be connected. Therefore, this
word might be something other than tushāqqūna.
294
) The traces here do not quite match fīhim.
295
) The traces in the illegible part are compatible with al-hudā.
296
) The traces at the beginning of this illegible part match the grapheme ‫ﻟﺴﻮ‬
better than ‫ﻟﺤﺮ ﯼ‬.
297
) The presence of this dāl establishes that the text differs from the stan-
dard reading. This dāl might belong to the word al-ʽadhāb (the traces before dāl
match lām and ʽayn). However, it is not clear what precedes this putative al-
ʽadhāb.
298
) This putative mīm might belong to the word al-yawm. Considering the
traces in the previous line, the text after al-ʽilm may be inna l-sū’a wa-l-ʽadhāba
l-yawma ʽalā l-kāfirīna.
299
) Considering the initial tooth and the other traces, the text might have
yulqūna instead of the standard fa-alqawū.
300
) The illegible space after the initial lām is rather large for a medial sīn.
301
) The traces here do not quite match kunnā (they are compatible with
nakun).
302
) The letter alif suggests the text may have sū’an instead of min sū’in.
However, the illegible space before alif is rather large for the grapheme ‫ﺳﻮ‬.
303
) The illegible space is small, suggesting this word may be fa-bi’sa instead
of fa-la-bi’sa.
304
) The available space here is rather small for li-lladhīna.
/ /‫ ﻟ‬306[‫ ]و‬/ /(‫ )ﺣ‬// [‫ )ٯـ(]ﻰ[ )هﺪ ﻩ( ﺣﺴٮـ]ﻪ[ )و ا( ﻟﺪ ا )ر ا ﻻ( ]ﺣﺮ‬305/ / 9

//(‫ ]ﺣ[)ﻠ‬//[‫ )ٮـ(]ﻬ‬/ /[‫ )ٮـﺤ(ﺮ )ﯼ ﻣﮟ ٮـﺤٮـ(]ﻬ‬/ /(‫]ٮ[ )ﻋ‬//(‫ )ﺣ‬/ /[‫]د ا ر[ )ا( ]ﻟ‬ 10
309
/ /‫ ]۝[ )ا ﻟﺪ( ٮـ‬/ /[‫]ٯٮـ‬//[‫]ا[ ٮﺪ ا ﮐﺪ ﻟﮏ )ٮـ(]ﺤ[ﺮ )ﯼ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ﻟ]ﻤ‬ 308
(‫)ﺎ‬/ /‫ٯـ‬ / /
307
11
/ / [‫]ﻮ‬//‫ ا د ﺣ‬//‫]ﻢ[ ﻋﻠٮـﮑ‬//[‫]ﺳ‬ 310
//(‫ٮﮟ )و ٯٮـ‬/ / [‫ )ا( ]ﻟﻤ[ﻠٮـﮑ]ﻪ‬/ / 12
‫ ا‬//[‫ ]هﻞ[ ٮٮـ]ﻄ[)ﺮ( ]و[ ں ا ﻻ ا ]ں[ ٮـ)ﺎ( ٮٮـ]ﻬ‬// ‫ ں‬//(‫)ﻠ‬/ /‫ ]ٮـ[ﻌ‬/ / 13
//[‫ ﮐﺪ ﻟ)ﮏ( ]ٯـﻌ‬//(‫ٮـﻌ]ﺺ[ )ا ٮـ(ٮ ر )ٮـﻬ‬ 311
/ / [‫)ﮑﻪ( ]ا و‬/ /[‫]ﻟﻤ‬ 14
/ / ‫ ﻟ)ﮑﮟ آ(ﺎ‬// [‫ ا ﻟ]ﻠﻪ‬/ /‫ ﻃﻠﻤ‬//[‫ )و( ]ﻣ‬/ /‫ ٯٮـﻠ‬//[‫ ]ﻣ‬/ / 15
/ /(‫ )ا و ﺣ‬//[‫ ﻣ)ﺎ ﻋ(ﻤ]ﻠ‬/ /[‫]ﻬ[)ﻢ( ]ﺳٮٮـ‬/ /[‫ )ٯﺎ( ]ﺻ‬// ‫ ں‬/ /[‫]ﻠ‬//‫ ٮـ‬/ / 16
[‫ ]ا ﻟﻮ‬312/ /[‫ )۝( و ]ٯـ[)ﻞ( ا ﻟﺪ )ٮﮟ( ]آ‬/ / (‫ )و‬/ /[‫ ٮﻮ )ا( ٮـ)ﺴ(]ٮـ‬//(‫ٮـ)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ ﻣ)ﺎ آ‬ 17
315
/ / ‫ﮟ د و ٮﻪ‬// (‫]ﺮ ﻣٮـ[)ﺎ‬/
314
/ (‫)و‬ 313
/ /‫ ﻣ‬/ / ‫}{ ﺳ)ﺎ( ا‬ 18
/ /[‫ ]ٮـ[)ﮟ( ﻣ)ﮟ( ٯٮﻠﻬﻢ و ]ه[ﻞ ]ﻋﻠ‬/ / [‫ﺎ ٮﺎ ]ﮐﺪ‬// (‫ )ا‬/ / (‫} {)و‬ 19
/ / (‫)ﺎ( ٯـ)ﻰ ا ﻣﻢ‬//(‫)ﻟ(ٯـ]ﺪ[ ا ]ر ﺳ[)ﻠ‬ 317
/ /‫ا ]ﻻ[ ٮـ‬ 316
// ‫ﻮ‬/ /{ } 20
305
) Considering the traces at the end of the previous line, the text might
have li-man ʽamila followed by a noun such as al-ṣāliḥāti instead of the standard
li-lladhīna aḥsanū. However, the traces at the beginning of this line do not quite
match al-ṣāliḥāt.
306
) The traces represented by this wāw are close to the next word. Therefore,
this word may be wa-la-niʽma or fa-la-niʽma.
307
) This word may be khālidīna.
308
) This word may be fīhā.
309
) It is not clear whether another grapheme is written after alladhīna or
not.
310
) It seems the text has wa-qīla instead of yaqūlūna.
311
) The available space is rather large for ya’tiya. The word may be
ya’tiyahum.
312
) The letter preceding this illegible part is certainly not alif. It may be
kāf, in which case the text may have kafarū instead of ashrakū.
313
) The traces are compatible with ashraknā.
314
) This word may be ḥarramnā.
315
) This space is rather small for the phrase min shay’in naḥnu. The text
might have shay’an instead of min shay’in.
316
) Considering the presence of wāw here, this word may be al-rasūl instead
of al-rusul.
317
) There does not seem to be a definite article before the tooth preceding
this part, and there is not sufficient space there for an article.
/ / (‫ )ﻩ‬/ /‫ )ا ﻟ(ﻃ‬319[‫ )و ا( ﺣٮـ]ٮﻮ ا‬/ / [‫)ﺪ و ا( ]ا‬//‫ )ا( ں ا ﻋ‬318/ /‫} {ﻠ‬ 21
/ /[‫ )ﺣٯـ(ٮ ﻋﻠ]ٮﻪ[ ا ]ﻟﺼ‬/ /‫ ﻣ‬//[‫ و ]ﻣ[ٮـ]ﻬ‬/ /(‫ )ﻟ‬/ /{ } 22
/ / ‫ و )ا( آٮـ)ڡ( آ]ﺎ[ ں‬//[‫ ا )ﻻ( ر ]ص ٯـ[)ﻠ(ٮٮـ]ﻄ‬/ / 320
[‫ ]و ا‬/ /[‫]ﺴ‬//[‫} {]ﻠ‬ 23
{ } / /(‫ )ﻟ‬// [‫ ]ں‬/ /[‫ ص ﻋﻠﯽ ه]ﺪ[ ٮـ]ﻬ‬//[‫ ]و[ ا ]ں ٮـﺤ‬/ /[‫} { ]ﻟﻤﮑ‬ 24
Folio 13 B (Q 16.37 – 16.59)
{ } //[‫ ]ﻟﻠ‬//(‫]ﮟ[ ۝ و )ا ٯـ(ﺴﻤﻮ ا )ٮـ‬// [‫ ٮـ]ﺼﺮ‬/ /(‫ )ﻣ(]ﺎ[ )ﻟ‬/ / 1

/ /[‫]ﻋ[ﻠ]ٮـ‬ 321
(‫]ﻠﻰ و[ )ﻋﺪ‬/ /[‫ ]ﻣ‬/ / [‫ ]ا‬/ /[‫ ]ٮٮـ‬/ /(‫)ﻤ‬/ /(‫)ﺣ‬ 2
‫]ﮟ ﻟﻬ[ﻢ ]ا[ ﻟ]ﺪ[ )ﯼ( ا‬/ /[‫ )ﻟ(]ٮﺎ س ﻻ ٮـﻌ[)ﻠ(]ﻤﻮ[ )ں( ۝ ]ﻟٮـ‬/ / 3
/ /(‫ )ٮٮـ‬//[‫ ]آ‬/ / (‫ )ﮐﺎ‬/ / 323
(‫)ﮟ‬//(‫)و ﻟ(ٮـﻌ)ﻠ‬ 322
/ / 4
[‫ ]ﮐﮟ‬/ / [‫)ﻮ( ]ل‬/ / [‫ ]ں‬/ /‫ ﺳٮـ‬/ / ‫)ﺎ( ]ا د ا[ )ا( ر د‬/ / [‫]ٮﻤﺎ‬/ / 5
//[‫]ﻢ[ ]ﻣٮـ‬/ / (‫ٮـ)ﻮ‬//‫ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻟ‬/ / ‫و )ا( ٯـ‬
326 325
/ /(‫ )ه‬/ / [‫)ا( ]ں‬ 324
// [‫ٯٮـ]ﮑﻮ ں‬ 6
[‫ﻌ)ﻠﻤﻮ ں( ]۝‬// (‫ ]ٮﻮ[ )ا‬//‫ )ﻟﻮ( آ‬/ /‫ ﺣ‬// (‫ٯﯽ ا ﻻ( ﺣ)ﺮ‬ 329
‫ ٮـ)ﻬﻢ‬//(‫و ﻟﻤ)ٮـ‬ 328
/ / 327
(‫)ا‬ 7
{ } (‫ ر ﺳ]ﻟٮﺎ ﻣ[)ﮟ‬// ‫ا ]ﻟﺪ[ ٮـ)ﮟ ﺻ(ٮﺮ و ]ا[ )و ﻋ(ﻠ)ﻰ ر( ٮﻬﻢ ٮٮـ)ﻮ( ]آ[)ﻠﻮ ں( ۝ )و( ]ﻣ[ﺎ‬ 8
//[‫ )ا( ]ﻟﺪ آ‬//(‫ ا )ا ه‬//‫]ﺴ[ﻠ‬/ /(‫ٮـ]ﻮ ﺣ[)ﻰ ا ﻟ‬ 330
/ /‫ٮـ‬/ / (‫)ﻠ(]ﮏ ا[ )ﻻ‬//‫ٯـ‬ 9
318
) Perhaps fī umamin is followed by min qablikum.
319
) There does not seem to be more than two teeth between ḥā’ and the pu-
tative wāw.
320
) This word may be fa-l-yasīrū.
321
) There is no trace of an alif after waʽd, and there is not quite enough
room for it.
322
) Considering the alif at the end of the previous line and the traces in this
part, the text may be ikhtalafū fīhi instead of yakhtalifūna fīhi.
323
) This word may be wa-li-yaʽlamanna.
324
) This verse does not seem to begin with a wāw.
325
) Traces of an initial ḥā’/jīm are visible exactly where the initial hā’ is
written. Perhaps the scribe first wrote jāhadū but then changed it to hājarū.
326
) This letter may be wāw or fā’. However, the traces following it suggest
the text here is fī sabīli llāhi, which would require this letter to be fā’.
327
) This word may be mubawwa’an.
328
) The illegible part seems to begin with a tooth. However, the tooth-
shaped traces may also be part of a letter such as ṣād or kāf. The traces at the
end of this part resemble a final nūn, but can also be part of a final sīn/shīn or
ṣād/ḍād.
329
) This phrase may be la-mubawwa’uhum or la-mathwāhum fī l-ākhirati
khayrun.
330
) This word may be rijālan, spelled as ‫رﺣٮﻼ‬.
331
/ / [‫]ٮٮـ[ٮ ]و[ )ٮﺎ( ﻟﺮ ٮـ)ﺮ( ]و ﻣﺎ ا ٮـ[ﺮ ]ﻟٮﺎ‬// (‫)ﺎ‬/ / (‫)ٮﻢ( ﻻ )ٮـ(ﻌﻠ)ﻤﻮ ں‬//‫ا )ں( آ‬ 10
‫ا‬ 332
‫ و ں‬/ /‫ ٮـﻤ‬/ / [‫]ﺪ‬// (‫ )ا‬//(‫ )ا ٯـﻤ‬// (‫ ا )ﻻ( ]ﻟ[)ﻌ(ﻠ)ﮑﻢ ٮﺪ آ(ﺮ و )ں‬//(‫)ا ﻟﺪ آ‬ 11
/ / (‫)ا‬ 333
[‫ ٮٮـ]ٮـﻬﻢ‬/ / ‫ و‬// ‫ﺴ)ڡ ا ﻟ(ﻠ]ﻪ[ ٮﻬﻢ )ا ﻻ( ر ص‬/ / (‫]ﻟﺴ[ٮٮـ]ٮ[ )ا ں‬ 12
/ /[‫ ٮـ]ﻤ‬//‫ٯﯽ ٮٯـﻠٮـ]ﻬﻢ[ ٯﻤﺎ ه‬ 334
‫)ﺼ(ٮٮﻬﻢ‬// (‫]ٮ[ )ﻻ( ٮـ)ﺴ(ﻌﺮ و )ں( ۝ ا )و‬//[‫ ]ﺣ‬//[‫]ﻣ‬ 13
/ / (‫ )ا‬// [‫ و )ڡ( ]ر[ ﺣ]ٮﻢ‬//‫ﻟ‬ 335
/ /‫ ٮـ‬// (‫ ا و ]ٮﺎ[ )ﺣ(ﺪ ﮐﻢ )ﻋﻠ(ﻰ ٮﺤﻮ ]ڡ[ )ا ں‬// [‫]ﮟ‬// 14
‫)و( ا ) ﻻ‬ 337
[‫ ]و‬/ /(‫]ﺎ[ )ﻟ‬// ‫ﻪ‬//‫)ﺎ( ]ٯـ[)ﻰ ا( ﻻ ر ص )ٮـ(]ٮٯـ[)ٮﺎ ﻃ(ﻠ‬/ / ‫ ]و [ ا‬/ /
336
15
[‫ﺻ(]ﻞ ﻋﮟ‬
/ / (‫]ﻤٮﮟ[ ]و[ ﻋٮﺪ ا ﻟﺴ)ﻤٮـﻞ( ]ﻟﻠ[ﻪ ﺳﺤ)ﺪ( ا و هﻢ )د( ﺣﺮ و ں )۝‬/ / 16
/ / (‫]ﻣ[ﮟ ]ٯـ[)ﻰ( ]ا[ ﻟ]ﺴ[)ﻤﻮ ٮ( و ا ﻻ )ر ص و( ا ﻟ]ﻤ[)ﻠ(ٮﮑﻪ ﺳﺤﺪ و )ں‬ 338
/ / 17
/ /‫]ٯـﻌ[)ﻠ(ﻮ )ں( ﻣ‬// [‫ﻢ ]و‬//[‫ ]ٯـ‬//[‫)ﮟ( ]ٯـ‬/ /[‫ ]ٮﺤٯﻮ[ ں ]ر ٮـ‬// (‫ و )ں‬/ /[‫]ٮـﺴ‬ 339
/ / 18
‫]ٮـ[)ﮟ( ا ٮـﻤ)ﺎ( ه)ﻮ( ا‬/ / ‫ا‬ 340
(‫]ﻬ[ٮـ)ﮟ‬//(‫ )ﻟ‬// ‫]ﻪ[ ﻻ )ٮٮـ(ﺤ)ﺪ( ]و[ ا‬//[‫ ]ں ۝[ )ٯﻞ( ا ]ﻟ‬/ / 19
‫ٮﺎ ا‬
‫ ٮ و ﻣ)ﺎ( ]ٯـ[ﻰ‬/ /[‫ )ں( ۝ ]و[ )ﻟ(ﻪ )ﻣﺎ( ٯﯽ ا ﻟ]ﺴ‬//‫ هٮـ‬// [‫ﻰ ٯـ]ﺎ‬// [‫ )ٯـ(]ﺎ‬341/ / 20
[‫]ﻣ[ﺎ ]ٮـ[)ﮑﻢ( ]ﻣﮟ‬ 342
// ‫ ں‬/ / (‫]ﺎ[ )ا( ٯـﻌ]ٮﺮ[ )ا‬/ / ‫ و‬/ /(‫]ﻪ[ )ا( ﻟﺪ )ٮـ‬// (‫)ﻻ ر ص و‬ 21
{} (‫)ﺤ(]ﺮ و ں[ )۝ ٮﻢ‬// [‫]ﻪ‬//‫ )ا ﻟﺼ(ﺮ )ٯﺎ( ﻟ‬/ / (‫ )ا‬// 343‫)ﮟ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ )و( ا‬//[‫ ]ٯـ‬/ /[‫]ﻌ‬// 22
{ }[‫ ]ﮐﻮ‬/ /[‫ )ﻣ(]ٮـ‬/ / ‫ﻢ‬/ / ‫ )ا ﮐﺴڡ( ا ﻟ]ﺼ[ﺮ‬/ / 23
{ } // [‫ ]ں‬/ /(‫ ]ڡ ٮـﻌ[)ﻠ‬//(‫ ]ٯـ[)ﺴ‬// (‫)ﻮ‬/ /[‫ ٯـﻠ]ٮٮـﻤ‬/ /[‫)ٯـ(]ﺮ و ا ٮـ[)ﺎ( ]ﻟ[ﺪ ﯼ ا ]ٮٮـ‬/ / 24
{ }‫ ﻟٮـﺴ‬/ / [‫ ر ر )ٯـ(]ٮـﻬ[)ﻢ( ]ٮﺎ‬//[‫]ﻣﻤ‬ (‫ ﻟﻤﺎ )ﻻ( ٮـ)ﻌ(ﻠﻤﻮ )ں ﺣﺮ ا‬/
344
/ 25
331
) The traces match ʽalayka better than the standard ilayka.
332
) This word may be yamkurūna.
333
) This word may be ya’tiyannahum.
334
) This word may be yuṣībahum.
335
) The traces following the tooth are more similar to hā’ than kāf.
336
) Considering the space available at the end of the previous line and be-
ginning of this line, the text may be a-lam yaraw/taraw.
337
) This word may be bi-l-ghuduwwi, and the next word may be wa-l-āṣāli.
338
) Considering the following words, the beginning of the verse may be wa-
kullu.
339
) Considering the context, the phrase li-llāhi wa-lā might be written be-
tween ‫ ﺳﺤﺪون‬and the putative yastakbirūn.
340
) The initial lām and the putative hā’ seem to be separated by a letter,
possibly a tooth representing the long vowel ā.
341
) Perhaps the scribe wanted to write innamā anā llāhu, but mistakenly
wrote huwa before anā.
342
) No wāw seems to be written here.
343
) It is not clear if alif is attached to the previous letter or not.
344
) This word may be juz’an.
{ }(‫ ]و[ )ﻟ‬/ /[‫ ]ﺳٮـﺤ‬/ /‫ )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ ا ﻟٮٮـ‬// ‫]ٮﻢ[ ٮٯٮـ]ﺮ[ )و( ں ۝ )و( ﺣﻌﻠﻮ‬//[‫ آ‬345‫]ﻋﻤﺎ‬ 26
{ }/ / (‫)ﻰ‬/ / (‫ )ﺣ(]ﺪ[ ه]ﻢ[ ٮـ)ﺎ ﻻ‬// ‫ﺮ‬/ /‫ ]ٮﺴٮﻬﻮ[ )ں ۝( ]و[ )ا د ا( ٮـ‬/ / {} 27
{ } ‫]ﻣ[ﺎ‬ ‫ ﯼ‬/ / (‫ ]ﻣ[)ﮟ‬// [‫ ٮٮـ]ﻮ ر[ )ﯼ ﻣ(]ﮟ[ )ا( ﻟ)ٯـ(]ﻮ‬/ /‫ )و( ه]ﻮ[ آﻄ‬/
346
/ 28
{ } / / ‫ﺮ ٮ‬//(‫ٮﺪ ]ﺳﻪ ٯـ[)ﻰ ا ﻟ‬ 347
(‫ )ﻣﺎ‬/ / ‫ ں‬//‫ )ﻋﻠﯽ( ه‬/ / 29
Folio 14 A (Q 16.67 – 16.69)348
{ }/ /{ } 1
{ } ‫{ ]ں[ ا ٮﺤﺪ‬ } 2
{ }// ‫{ ۝ ٮﻢ ]آ[ﻠﻰ‬ } 3
{ }// (‫ )ح‬//(‫{ ٮـ)ﺤ‬ } 4
Folio 14 B (Q 16.77 – 16.79)
{ }/ /{ } 1
{ } [‫{]ﻬٮـ[ﮑ]ﻢ‬ } 2
{ }// 349
[‫{ ا ﻟٮـﺼ]ﺮ‬ } 3
{ }[‫ ]ا ﻟ‬// [‫{ ]و‬ } 4
Folio 9 A (Q 33.51 – 33.57)
{ } [‫ ]ٮﺴﺎ‬/ /‫ )و ٮـ(]ﻮ ﯼ[ ا ﻟٮﮏ ﻣ‬/ /‫)ٮـ(ﺮ ﺣ)ﻰ( ]ﻣﮟ[ ٮـ)ﺴﺎ( ]ﻣٮـ[ﻬ‬ 1

{ } (‫)ﺮ( ]ﻟ[ٮ )ٯـ(ﻠﺎ )ﺣ(ٮﺢ ]ﻋ[ﻠ]ٮـ[)ﮏ‬//[‫)ﻣ(ﻤ]ﮟ[ ا ]ﻋ‬ 350
‫و ﻣ)ﺎ( ]ا ٮٮـ[ﻌ]ٮـ[ٮ‬ 2
‫ ں و ٮﺮ‬/ /(‫د ﻟﮏ ا د ٮﯽ ا )ں( ٮٯﺮ ں ﻋٮﻮ ٮﻬﮟ و ﻻ )ٮـ‬ 3
(‫ﺻ)ٮـ(ﮟ ٮـ)ﻤﺎ( ا و )ٮٮـ(ﮟ ﮐﻠﻬﮟ و ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ٮـﻌﻠ]ﻢ[ ﻣ)ﺎ ٯـ(ﻰ )ٯﻠﻮ ٮﮑﻢ‬ 4
(‫)و آ(ﺎ )ں( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠ)ٮـ(ﻤﺎ ﺣﻠٮﻤﺎ ۝ )ﻣﺎ( ٮﺤﻞ ﻟﮏ ا ﻟٮﺴﺎ )ﻣﮟ‬ 5
345
) The traces match ʽan mā as well.
346
) This word may be khizy.
347
) This word may be immā, in which case the text may have immā yumsi-
kuhu instead of a-yumsikuhu.
348
) The meagerness of the text makes it difficult to rule out that it belongs
to a different part of the Qur’ān.
349
) The text may have al-baṣar instead of the standard al-abṣār.
350
) Traces of a lām are also visible at the beginning of this grapheme. Per-
haps the scribe made a mistake and corrected it later.
‫ٮﻌﺪ و ﻻ ا ں ٮٮﺪ ل ﻣ)ﮟ( ا ر و ﺣﺎ و ﻟﻮ ا ]ﻋ[ﺤٮﮏ‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫ﺣﺴٮـﻬ)ﮟ ا ﻻ( ﻣﺎ ﻣﻠ]ﮑ[‪ / /‬ٮـ]ﻤٮٮـ[)ﮏ و آ(ﺎ ں ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ﻋﻠ} {‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﮐﻞ ]ﺳ[ﺎ ﯼ ر )ٯـ(ٮٮﺎ ۝ ٮﺎ ٮـ)ﻬ(ﺎ ]ا[ ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ا ﻣٮﻮ )ا( ﻻ}‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﺣﻠﻮ ا ٮٮﻮ ٮ ا )ﻟ(ٮٮﯽ ا ﻻ ا )ں( ٮﻮ د ں ﻟﮑﻢ ا )ﻟﯽ(}‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻋٮﺮ ٮﻄﺮ ٮﮟ )ا ٮـ(ٮـ‪ //‬و ﻟ]ﮑ[‪ / /‬ا ]د ا[ د )ﻋ(]ٮٮـ[ﻢ )ٯﺎ(}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٯﺎ د ا )ﻃﻌ(ﻤٮﻢ )ٯـ(ﺎ )ٮٮـ(ﺴﺮ و ا و ﻻ ﻣﺴٮٮـ}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ا ں )د( ﻟﮑﻢ )آ(ﺎ ]ں[ ٮﻮ د ]ﯼ[ ا ﻟ)ٮٮـ(ﻰ )و( ٮـﺴٮـﺤ}‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻻ ٮﺴٮﺤٮﯽ )ﻣﮟ ا( ﻟﺤ)ٯ( ‪ / /‬د ا ﺳ)ﻠ(}‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ه(]ﮟ[ ﻣﮟ و را ﺣﺤٮـ)ٮ( د ﻟﮏ ا ﻃ)ﻬ(}‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٮـ)ﻬﮟ( و ﻣ)ﺎ( ﮐﺎ ں ﻟ)ﮑﻢ( ا ں )ٮﻮ( د و ا}‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻻ )ٮٮـ(ﮑﺤﻮ ا ا )ر( و ﺣﻪ ﻣﮟ ٮﻌﺪ ﻩ}‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ﻋ(]ٮـ[ﺪ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻄٮﻤﺎ ۝ ا ں ٮـ]ٮـ[)ﺪ و( ا }‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ں ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﮐﺎ ں ٮـ)ﮑ(ﻞ ﺳﺎ ﯼ ﻋﻠٮـﻤ)ﺎ( }‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٮٮـﻬ‪ / /‬و ﻻ ا ٮٮﺎ ٮـ)ﻬﮟ و( ﻻ ا ]ﺣ[}‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ا ﺣ)ﻮ ٮـ(ﻬﮟ و ﻻ}‬ ‫‪351‬‬
‫ٮـﻬ)ﮟ و ٮٮﺎ( ﯼ‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ )و ا ٮـ(]ٯٮﮟ[ ا ﻟﻠﻪ )ا(}‬ ‫)ا ٮـ(}‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ ]ں[ )ا( ]ﻟﻠﻪ[ )و(}‬ ‫‪}//‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ ]ٮﮟ[ )ا ﻣ(‪)//‬ﻮ ا(}‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ ]ا[ ‪} / /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫)‪Folio 9 B (Q 33.57 – 33.72‬‬
‫{ ]ﻋﺪ[ )ٮﺎ( ﻣ)ﻬٮـ(‪]//‬ﺎ[ )۝( ]و[ )ا ﻟﺪ( ‪]//‬ﮟ[ ٮﻮ د ]و[ )ں( ا )ﻟ(ﻤﻮ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫} { ﻣٮٮﮟ )و( ا ﻟﻤﻮ )ﻣ(ٮٮـ)ٮ ٮـ(]ﻌ[‪]//‬ﺮ[ ﻣﺎ ]آ[)ﺴ(ٮﻮ ا )ٯٯﺪ(‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫} { ا ﺣٮـ)ﻤ(ﻠﻮ ا ٮﻬٮٮـ)ﺎ( و ]ا ٮـ[ﻤﺎ )ﻣ(‪)//‬ٮـ(ٮﺎ ۝ )ٮـ(ﺎ ٮﻬﺎ ا )ﻟ(‪)/ /‬ﻰ(‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ٯﻞ ﻻ ر و ﺣﮏ و ٮٮـ)ٮـ(ﮏ و ٮـ)ﺴ(ﺎ ا ﻟ)ﻤ(]ﻮ[ ﻣٮـ)ٮﮟ( ٮﺪ )ٮـ(ٮﮟ‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ﻋﻠٮﻬﮟ )ﻣﮟ( ﺣ)ﻠ(ٮٮٮﻬﮟ د ﻟ)ﮏ( ا د ٮﯽ ا ں ٮـ]ﻌ[)ﺮ( ٯﮟ ٯـ)ﻠﺎ( ٮـ)ﻮ( د ٮﮟ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪351‬‬
‫‪) The text may be wa-lā bnāyi, with the hamzat al-waṣl having been‬‬
‫‪dropped and the hamza at the end turned into yā’. Softening (tashīl) is reported‬‬
‫‪for the hamza at the end of the instance of abnā’ that is followed by ikhwāni-‬‬
‫‪hinna (al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 7:311). Alternatively, maybe the scribe wanted to‬‬
‫‪write banī, which is also a plural of ibn, but made a mistake and wrote alif before‬‬
‫‪yā’.‬‬
‫‪352‬‬
‫و ﮐﺎ ں ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ﻋٯﻮ )ر( ا ر ﺣ)ٮـﻤ(ﺎ ۝ ﻟٮﮟ ﻟﻢ ٮٮٮـ)ﻪ( ا ﻟﻤ)ٮـ(ٯٯـ‪)//‬ﮟ(‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫)و( ا ﻟ)ﻤ(‪ //‬ﺣٯﻮ ں ٯـ]ﻰ[ ا ﻟ]ﻤ[ﺪ )ٮـ(]ٮﻪ[ )و( ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ٯﯽ ٯﻠﻮ )ٮـ(ﻬﻢ‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫} { ]ص[ ﻟٮـ‪)//‬ﺮ( ٮـ)ٮﮏ( ٮـﻬ]ﻢ[ )ٮـ(]ﻢ[ ﻻ ]ٮـ[ﺤﻮ رو ٮﮏ ٯٮﻬﺎ ا ﻻ‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫} {]ﻟﺎ[ ۝ ﻣﻠﻌ)ﻮ( ٮـ)ٮـ(ﮟ ا ٮٮـ)ﻤ(ﺎ ٮٯـ)ٯـ(ﻮ ا ا )ﺣ(ﺪ )و( ا )و( ٯـ]ٮـ[ﻠﻮ ا‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{)۝( ]ﺳٮٮ[ ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ٯﯽ ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ )ﻣ(ﮟ ٯٮـ)ﻞ( و ﻟﮟ ٮﺤﺪ ﻟﺴٮـ)ﻪ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{]ﺪ[ )ٮـ(ﻠﺎ ]۝[ ٮـ)ﺴﻠ(ﮏ ا ﻟ)ٮﺎ( س ﻋﮟ ا ﻟﺴﺎ )ﻋﻪ( ٯﻞ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{ ﻋٮﺪ ا ﻟﻠﻪ )ﻣ(ﺎ ٮﺪ ر ٮﮏ ﻟﻌ)ﻞ( ا ﻟﺴﺎ ]ﻋ[ﻪ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{ ا ں ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ ﻟﻌﮟ ا ﻟ)ﮑٯـﺮ( ٮﮟ و ا ﻋﺪ ﻟﻬﻢ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{)ﮟ ٯـ(ٮـﻬ)ﺎ( ا ٮﺪ ا ﻻ ٮﺤﺪ و ں و ﻟٮﺎ و‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪/‬و‬ ‫{ ٮـ)ٯـ(ﻠ]ٮ[ و ﺣ)ﻮ( هﻬ)ﻢ( ٯـ)ﻰ( ا ﻟ‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫{ ﻃﻌٮـ)ﺎ( ا )ﻟ(ﻠ]ﻪ[ و ا ﻃﻌٮﺎ ا ﻟﺮ ﺳﻮ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫{ ا )ٮﺎ( ﻋ)ﺼٮـ(ٮﺎ و )ا( ﻃﻌٮﺎ )ﺳ(ﺎ د ‪//‬ٮـ)ﺎ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫{‪) / /‬ﻟ(]ﺴ[‪/ /‬ﻞ ]۝ ر[ ‪]/ /‬ﺎ[ )ا( ٮـ]ﻬ[‪ //‬ﺻﻌ]ٯـ[ٮﮟ ﻣﮟ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫{]ﻟ[‪]/ /‬ﻢ[ ﻟ]ﻌٮـ[ﺎ آٮٮـ)ﺮ( ا )۝( ٮﺎ ٮﻬﺎ ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫{)ﻟ(ﺪ ]ٮﮟ[ ‪ //‬د و )ا( ﻣﻮ ﺳﯽ ٯٮﺮ )ا( ]ﻩ[ ا‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫{‪)//‬ٮﺪ( ا ]ﻟ[ﻠﻪ و ﺣ)ٮـ(ﻬﺎ ٮﺎ ]ٮـ[ﻬ‪ //‬ا ﻟﺪ ‪//‬ﮟ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫ٯـ‪) //‬ﻻ( ﺳ)ﺪ ٮﺪ( ا ]۝[ )ٮـ(ﺼﻠ]ﺢ[‬ ‫‪353‬‬
‫{ ]ٯـ[)ﻮ( ﻻ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫{)د( ٮﻮ ٮﮑﻢ و ﻣﮟ ٮـﻄ]ﻊ[ ا )ﻟ(} { ‪/ /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫{‪/ /‬‬ ‫{)ﺎ ۝( ]ا[ ٮﺎ ﻋ]ﺮ[ ‪/ /‬ﺎ ا}‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ ]ٯـ[)ﺎ( ‪) / /‬ا( ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪}/‬‬ ‫{‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫)‪Folio 25 A (Q 39.25 – 39.36‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} { ﺣٮٮ ﻻ ٮـﺴ‪)//‬ﺮ و ں( ]۝[}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{‬ ‫ا ﻟﺪ ‪//‬ٮـ‪] //‬و[ )ﻟ(]ﻌ[)ﺪ( ]ٮ ا[ )ﻻ ﺣ(}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{‬ ‫و ﻟ)ٯـ(‪] //‬ﺻ[‪)/ /‬ﺎ( ﻟﻠٮﺎ )س( ٯﯽ }‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻟﻌﻠﻬﻢ ٮﺪ ﮐﺮ و )ں ۝( ٯﺮ )ٮـ(ﺎ ]ﻋﺮ[ }‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٮـﻌ)ٯـﻠ(ﻮ )ں( ‪] //‬ﺻﺮ[ ‪ / /‬ا )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ ‪)/ /‬ﻠﺎ( ر }‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪352‬‬
‫‪) The final nūn is not separate from the previous letters, suggesting that‬‬
‫‪this word is al-munāfiqīn, which would be grammatically incorrect.‬‬
‫‪353‬‬
‫‪) This is an error of the hand generated by the assimilation of a nearby‬‬
‫‪term.‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ ]ﺳﻠ[‪] / /‬ﻟ[‪] / /‬ه[‪ / /‬ٮـ‪/ /‬ٮـ}‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫‪) /‬ں( ]۝[ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫{ )۝ ٯـ(ﺎ ٮـ‪ / /‬ﻣ]ٮٮ و[ )ا( ٮـ]ﻬ[‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪) /‬ں( ۝ ]ٯـ[‪) / /‬ا(‬ ‫{ ٮﮑﻢ ٮـﺤ‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫{ )و( ]آ[‪ / /‬ٮـ‪]/ /‬ﺼ[‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{)ﻠﮑ(]ٯـ[‪ / /‬۝ ‪) / /‬ﻟ(]ﺪ[ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪{ }/‬‬ ‫{ ‪) / /‬ا( ‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ا ]ﻟ[‪} / /‬‬ ‫‪354‬‬
‫{‪) / /‬ﻟ(]ﮏ ٮـﺤ[‪) //‬ﯼ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪}//‬‬ ‫‪355‬‬
‫‪ /‬ٮـ]ٯـ[ﻢ‬ ‫{‪ / /‬ا ‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ )ا ﻟ(ﻠ)ﻪ( ٮـ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫)‪Folio 25 B (Q 39.42 – 39.47‬‬
‫{)ـﻞ( ﻣ]ﺴ[‪ / /‬ا ں ٯﯽ )د(} {‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{ )ں( ‪) //‬و ا( ]ٮـﺤ[)ﺪ( ‪ //‬ا ﻣ)ﮟ( د و‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{ )ﻟﻮ( ﮐﺎ ‪//‬ﻮ )ا( ]ﻻ[ ٮـ]ﻤ[ﻠﮑﻮ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{ٯﻞ ا ں )ا( ﻟﺴٯـ)ﻌ(ﻪ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺣ)ﻤ(ٮﻌﺎ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{ ]ر[ ص و ا ﻟ)ٮـ(ﻪ ٮﺮ )ﺣﻌ(]ﻮ[ )ں( ۝ و‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ا د ا ]د[ ﮐﺮ ٮ ا ﻟﻠﻪ و ﺣﺪ ]ﻩ[ ا )ﺳ(}‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ٮ( ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ﻻ ]ٮـ[ﻮ ﻣٮـ}‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫{‬ ‫و ٮﻪ ٯﺎ د ا )هﻢ( }‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ا( ﻟﺴﻤ)ﻮ( ٮ و ا ]ﻻ[}‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} { ا )ٮـ(ٮ ٯﺎ ﺣﮑﻢ ٮٮـ‪} / /‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {ـٮﻠٯﻮ ں ۝ )و( ﻟﻮ ]ا[ )ں ﻟ(}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {)ص( ﺣﻤ]ٮـﻌ[)ﺎ( ‪}//‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪354‬‬
‫‪) The text may have kadhālika najzī l-muḥsinīna instead of dhālika jazā’u‬‬
‫‪l-muḥsinīna.‬‬
‫‪355‬‬
‫‪) The letter before mīm might be hā’ instead, in which case this grapheme‬‬
‫‪may be part of the word yajziyahum.‬‬
‫)‪Folio 26 A (Q 39.51 – 39.70‬‬
‫‪356‬‬
‫{ و ﻣﺎ هﻢ ٮﻤﻌﺤﺮ ٮﮟ ۝ )و(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫{ ٯﯽ د ﻟ)ﮏ( ﻻ ٮـ)ٮ( ﻟ)ٯـ(]ﻮ[‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{ ﻋﻠﯽ ا ٮـ)ٯـ(]ﺴ[ﻬ]ﻢ[ ﻻ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{ٮـ‪) / /‬ا( ﻟ)ﺪ( ٮﻮ ٮ ﺣﻤٮﻌﺎ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{‪) //‬ٮـ(]ٮٮـ[ﻮ ا )ا( ﻟﯽ )ا ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ و ا‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{ ]ٮ[ ٮـ)ﻢ ﻻ ٮٮـ(ﺼ]ﺮ[ )و( ں ۝‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{ ‪) / /‬ٯـ(ٮـ)ﻞ( ا ں ٮﺎ ٮـ‪//‬ﮑﻢ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫{]۝[ و ٮـ)ٯـ(ﻮ ل ٮٯﺲ ٮـﺤ)ﺴ(ﺮ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{)آ(ٮٮ )ﻣﮟ ٯـ(ٮـ)ﻞ( ﻟﻤﮟ ا‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{ ٯﺎ ﮐﻮ ں )ﻣ(ﮟ )ا( ﻟ)ﻤ(ٮٯٮﮟ )۝(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{)ں( ﻟﯽ ﮐﺮ ]ﻩ[ ٯـ‪ //‬ﮐﻮ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫)و( ا ﺳٮﮑٮﺮ‬ ‫‪357‬‬
‫{‪)//‬ٮـ(]ٮـ[ﻬﺎ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{ﻤ)ﻪ( ٮـ‪ //‬ﯼ ا ﻟ)ﺪ( ٮﮟ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{ ا )و( ﻟ]ٮـ[ﺲ ٯﯽ ﺣﻬٮـ]ﻢ[‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫{ ٮـ)ٯﻮ( ا ٮـ)ﻤ(]ٯﺮ[ ٮـﻬ)ﻢ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫{ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ﺣﻠٯ ﮐﻞ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫{]ٯـ[ﻠ‪//‬ﺪ ا ﻟﺴ)ﻤﻮ( ٮ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫{ﻢ ا ﻻ ﺣﺴﺮ )و( ں ۝‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫{]ﻬ[)ﺎ( ا )ﻟ(ﺤﻬﻠ)ﻮ( ں )۝(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫{ ٯٮـﻠ)ﮏ ﻟٮﮟ( ا ]ﺳ[‪//‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫{ﺮ ٮـ)ﮟ( ۝ ٮﻞ ا ]ﻟ[‪/ /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫{ ر و ا ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫{‪) / /‬ا( ﻟ)ٯـ(‪)//‬ﻤ(ﻪ )و(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫{)و( ٮﻌﻠﯽ ﻋ)ﻤ(ﺎ )ٮـ(]ﺴ[‪//‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪358‬‬
‫{ﻌ)ٯ( ﻣﮟ )ٯـ(ٮـ‪)//‬ﻤ(ﺎ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫{ﯼ ٯﺎ )د( ا )ه(‪//‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫‪356‬‬
‫‪) Considering this letter and the length of the physically missing part of‬‬
‫‪line 2, the text may be wa-llāhu instead of a-wa-lam yaʽlamū anna llāha.‬‬
‫‪357‬‬
‫‪) The first tooth is preceded by a letter that might be sīn. The word may‬‬
‫‪be fa-nasītahā.‬‬
‫‪358‬‬
‫‪) The text seems to have fīhimā instead of fī l-samāwāti wa-l-arḍi.‬‬
// ‫{)ٮـ(ﻮ ر ر ٮﻬﺎ‬ } 27
/ /‫{ـﻬد ا و ٯـ‬ } 28
‫ﮐﻞ‬ 359
(‫{ ٮٮـ)ٮ‬ } 29
Folio 26 B (Q 39.70–75 – 40.1–8)
{ }/ /(‫ ﻣﺎ ﻋ]ﻤ[)ﻠ‬/ / 1
{ } [‫ ]ا ا ﻟ[ﻰ )ا ﻟ(ٮـ]ﺎ‬/ /‫ٮﮟ آ‬
360
2
{ } (‫ )ا‬//‫ﻬ‬//‫)ﻞ( ﺣ)ﺮ( ٮـ‬// (‫ )و‬//‫ٮـﻬ‬ 3
{ }/ /() 361/ / ‫ﻋﺪ )ٮ( ر‬ 4
{ }[‫ ۝ )و( ]ٯـ‬/ /[‫ﻋ)ﻠ(]ﻰ ا[ ﻟ]ﮑٯـ‬ 5
{ }‫ ٯٮٮـ]ﺲ[ ﻣٮﻮ‬//‫ٮﮟ ]ٯٮـ[ﻬ‬ 6
{ }‫ ]ا[ )ا( ﻟﯽ ا ﻟﺤٮـ‬//(‫)ٮٯـ‬ 7
{ } / / ‫ا د ﺣﻠ]ﻮ[ هﺎ‬
362
8
{ }/ / [‫ﻟ)ﺤﻤﺪ( ﻟﻠ]ﻪ‬ 9
{ }‫ٯﯽ )ا ﻻ( ر ص ٮـ‬ 10
{ } ‫ﺣﺮ ا ﻟﻌﻤﻠ)ٮـ(ﮟ ۝‬ 11
{ }(‫ )ں‬/ /(‫ر ٮـﻬ)ﻢ( ٮـ)ﺴٮـ‬ 12
{ }(‫ و ٯٮـ)ﻞ ا‬/ /(‫ٮﺎ )ﻟ‬ 13
{ }(‫)ﺣٮـ(]ﻤﻪ[ ﺳﻮ )ر ﻩ‬ 14
{ }‫ٮـ)ﺴﻢ( ا ]ﻟ[ﻠ)ﻪ( ا ﻟ‬ 15
{ }‫ﻣ)ﮟ ا( ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ ا ﻟ‬ 16
{ } / / (‫ ]ٮ[ )ﺳﺪ‬/ /‫ﻟ‬ 17
{ }//(‫)و ا( ﻟٮﻪ ا ﻟ)ﻤ‬ 18
{ }‫ ]و[ ا ٯﻼ ٮـ‬//[‫)آ(]ٯـ‬ 19
{ } // ‫ٯـ)ٮـ(]ﻠ[ﻬﻢ ٯﻮ‬ 20
359
) The text may have ūtiyat instead of wuffiyat. Cf. Q 32.13.
360
) The text may have al-nāri instead of Jahannama.
361
) Considering the traces and the amount of space, there may be yundhi-
rūnakum ʽadhāba rabbikum instead of the standard text between minkum and
qālū.
362
) The last letter in this illegible part may be alif or lām. The text after
al-janna might be zumaran ḥattā idhā jā’ūhā wa-qāla lahum khazanatuhā
udkhulūhā salāmun ʽalaykum ṭibtum fīhā khālidīn.
{ }// ‫)ﮐﻞ( ا ﻣ)ﻪ ٮـ(ﺮ‬ 21

{ }[‫]ﻪ‬// ‫ﺪ ]ﺣﺼﻮ[ ا‬/ / 22
{ }/ / ‫)آ(ﺎ ں‬ 363
[‫]ٮڡ‬// 23
{ } (‫ ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ آ]ٯﺮ[ )و‬// 24
{ } ‫]ا ﻟﻌﺮ[ )س و ﻣ(ﮟ‬ 25
{ } ‫ﻟ]ﻤ[)ﮟ( ٯﯽ ا ﻻ‬
365 364
[‫]ں‬ 26
{ }// ‫ ر ﺣﻤﻪ و‬// 27
{ }‫]ﮏ و[ ٯـﻬ‬/ / 28
{ }(‫]ﺪ[ ں ]ا[ )ﻟ(]ٮـ[ﻰ و )ﻋ‬/ / {} 29
Folio 15 A (Q 20.23 – 20.61)
/ / (‫ )ں ا‬/ / [‫ ﯼ ]ٯـ[ﺎ ]د ه[)ٮ( ]ا[ )ﻟ(]ﻰ ٯﺮ‬/ /(‫ ]ﻣ[ﮟ )ا( ]ٮٮـ[ٮﺎ ا )ﻟ‬366(‫)ﮏ‬/ / ‫]آ[ﺎ ﯼ‬ 1
[‫ )ا ﺣ(]ﻠﻞ‬// (‫)ﺮ( ﯼ )۝‬// [‫ﻟﯽ ]ا‬ / / ‫ ا‬// ‫ ﯼ ۝‬// [‫]ﺪ‬/ / (‫ ح ﻟ)ﻰ‬/ / (‫ ]ٮ[ )ا‬// ‫)ٯـ(ﻞ‬
367
2
‫)ﻋٯـ(]ﺪ[ ﻩ )ﻣ(ﮟ‬
‫)ﻠ(ﻰ )۝( ]هﺮ‬// ‫ )ٮﺮ ا ﻣ(ﮟ ا‬// [‫ﻞ )ﻟ(ﻰ ]و‬//(‫ ]ﻟ[ﻰ ۝ )و( ا )ﺣ‬//(‫]ٯٯﻬﻮ[ )ٯـ‬// ‫ﻰ ۝‬/ /(‫)ﻟ‬ 3
(‫و[ )ں( ]ا[ ﺣﯽ )۝‬
/‫ آ‬/ /[‫]ٮـﺤ‬/ / (‫ ]ٮﻪ[ ا ر ر ﯼ )۝‬/ /[‫ ]ٯـ[)ﻰ( ا ]ﻣ[)ﺮ( ﯼ ۝ )و( ا ]ﺳ‬/ / (‫]و ا ﺳ[)ﺮ‬ 4
(‫ ا )۝‬/
[‫ )ا ۝( ]ٯـ[)ﻞ( ا )و ٮٮـ(]ٮ‬/ /(‫ ٮﺪ )ﮐﺮ( ﮎ ]آ[)ٮٮﺮ( ا ۝ ا )ٮـ(ﮏ ]آٮـ[ٮ )ٮٮـ(ﺎ ٮـ)ﺼ‬// 5
(‫)ﺳﻮ‬
(‫ ا )ﺣ(ﺮ )ﯼ( ۝ )ا د‬368[‫ ]ٮﻤﻮ[ )ﺳﯽ( ۝ )و( ﻟ)ٯـ(]ﺪ[ ﻣٮـ)ٮـ(ﺎ ]ﻋ[ﻠ)ٮـ(ﮏ } { )ر( ]ﻩ‬/ / 6
‫)ﻰ( ا‬// ‫]ا[ )و ﺣ(ٮـ]ٮﺎ[ ا‬
/ /(‫ ٯٮﻪ )ٯـ(]ﻰ[ ا )ﻟ‬/ / (‫و ]ٮ ٮﻢ[ )ا‬/ /(‫ﻰ ا ں ا )ٯﺪ( ٯـ]ٮﻪ[ )ٯﯽ(} {)ﻟ‬/ /(‫]ﮏ ﻣ[ﺎ )ٮـ‬// 7
‫ٮ‬/ /‫ و ﻟ]ﻪ و[ )ا( ﻟ‬/ / (‫ )و‬369‫ﺎ‬//[‫ ]و ﻟ‬/ /{ }(‫ )ﻩ‬//(‫]ٯﻪ ا[ ﻟٮﻢ )ٯﯽ( ا ﻟ)ﺴﺤ(ﻞ )ٮﺎ ﺣ‬/ / 8
363
) The missing part on line 22 has much more space than is needed for
al-ḥaqq and fa-akhadhtuhum.
364
) The missing part on line 25 is rather small for the standard text between
wa-man and li-lladhīna. Perhaps the phrase wa-yu’minūna bihi is absent.
365
) The text may have li-man fī l-arḍi instead of li-lladhīna āmanū.
366
) Perhaps the text is kay nuriyaka instead of li-nuriyaka.
367
) The first letter in the illegible part may be ṣād/ḍād or kāf. The last letter
may be bā’/tā’/thā’.
368
) This word may be tāratan.
369
) The text seems to have lanā instead of the standard lī.
‫‪/‬ﻰ ‪)/ /‬ﮟ(‪) 370‬ٮﻄﻮ( ]ڡ[‪ 371‬ا ]ﺣ[‪)//‬ﮏ(‬ ‫‪]/‬ﻪ[ ‪/ /‬ﻰ )و ﻟ(‪]/ /‬ﻊ ﻋ[ﻠ‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫]ٯٮـ[‪]//‬ﻮ ل ه[)ﻞ(‬
‫‪] / /‬ﻟ[‪)/ /‬ﻠﻰ( ‪]//‬ﮟ[ ‪]//‬ﮑ[‪)/ /‬ﻪ ٯﺮ د( ‪] //‬ٮـ[)ﮏ(‪) // 372‬ﻟ(ﻰ ]ا ﻣ[)ﮏ( ]ﮐﯽ[ ‪) / /‬ﻋ(ٮٮﺎ‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫)و ﻻ(‬
‫‪] /‬و[ )ٯـ(‪)//‬ﻠ(‪/ /{ }/ /‬ﺎ ‪] 373/ /‬ٯـ[‪]/ /‬ٮـ[}{)ﮏ( ‪)//‬ﮟ( ا ﻟ]ﻌﻢ و[ ‪//‬ٮـ‪)//‬ﮏ ٯـ(ٮﻮ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫)ٮﺎ و(‬
‫‪ /‬ﺳ)ﻰ( ۝ ]و[ )ا ﺻﻄ(‪/‬‬ ‫‪] /‬ا هﻞ[ ‪) / /‬ٮـ(ﮟ ‪ / /‬ﺣ]ٮٮ[ ‪) //{}//‬ٯـ(‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪/‬ﮏ‬
‫]ﻟٮٯـﺴ[)ﻰ( ]ٯﺎ د[ ‪] / /‬ا[ )ٮٮ( ]و ا[ )ﺣ(]ﻮ[ )ﮎ ٮﺎ( } {‪)//‬ﺎ(‪] 374‬و[ )ﻻ ٮـ(‪)/ /‬ﺎ( ‪)//‬ﻰ د(‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫]آ [ ﺮ ﯼ ۝ ا د‬
‫]هٮ ا ﻟﯽ ٯﺮ[ ‪] / /‬ں ا[ ‪) / /‬ﻃ(‪//‬ﻰ )ٯٯـ(]ﻮ[ ﻻ }{‪) //‬ٯـ(]ﻮ ﻻ ﻟٮٮـ[)ﺎ( ]ﻟ[‪/ /‬ﻪ ٮٮﺪ ]ﮐﺮ[ ا‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪375‬‬
‫‪)/‬ﻰ ۝( ‪)/ /‬ﻠﺎ( ]ر[ ‪)/ /‬ﺎ( ]ا[ ‪)/ /‬ﺤﺎ( ]ڡ[ ا ں ]ٮٯﺮ[ )ط( ﻋﻠ‪)/ /‬ﺎ( ‪) //‬ا ں(‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ٮـ]ﻄ[‪//‬ﻰ )۝( ٯﻞ آ)ﻠﺎ(‬
‫]ا[ ‪]/ /‬ﮑﻤ[)ﺎ( ‪) 376/ /‬ا( ‪ / /‬ا ]ر[ )ﯼ ٯﺎ ٮٮـ(} { ٯٯﻮ ﻻ )ا ٮﺎ( ر ]ﺳﻮ[ ﻻ ر ٮﮏ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫‪ /‬ا ﺳ)ﺮ( ]ٮـ[)ﻞ( } { )ﻻ( ]ٮﻌﺪ[ )ٮـ(ﻬﻢ )و( ا ]ٮٮٮـ[)ﮏ‬ ‫]ا ﻟ[‪) / /‬ا( ‪) //‬ا( ‪] //‬ﺳ[)ﻞ(‪/ 377‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ٮﺎ(‬
‫‪] /‬ا[ )ﻟ(‪) / /‬ﯼ( ۝ ا ‪)//‬ﺎ( ‪) / /‬ا( ]و[ ﺣﯽ ا‬ ‫‪]/‬ﮏ[ )و ا ﻟ(‪]//‬ﻠﻢ[ ‪)//‬ﻠﻰ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫ﻟ]ٮـ[ٮـ)ﺎ(‬
‫‪) {}/ /‬ا( ‪] / /‬ٮ[ ‪]/ /‬ﻰ[ ‪ / /‬ﮐﺪ )ٮ( ‪) / /‬ﻟ(]ﻰ ۝[ ‪]/ /‬ﻤ[)ﺎ‪ 378‬ر( ]ٮـ[)ﮑ(‪)//‬ﺎ ٮـﻤ(ﻮ‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫]ﺳ[ﻰ ]۝[‬
‫‪) /‬ٯـ(]ﻤ[ﺎ ٮﺎ )ل ا( ﻟ]ٯـ[‪ //‬و‬ ‫‪){ }/ /‬ﺎ ﻣ(ﮟ )ا( ‪]//‬ﻄﻰ آ[‪] //‬ﺳﺎ ﯼ[ )ﺣﻠٯـ(]ﻪ[ ‪/{ }/ /‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫)ں( ا ﻻ‬
‫‪)/‬ﻰ( ‪] / /‬ﻻ ٮـﺼ[‪ //‬ر ]ٮـ[)ﻰ( ‪) //‬ﻻ ٮٮﺴﯽ( ۝ ا ﻟﺪ ﯼ‬ ‫‪379‬‬
‫‪){ }/‬ﻠ(‪)/ /‬ﺎ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫]ٯـ[‪)//‬ﻬ(ﺎ ا‬ ‫‪] { }/‬ص[ ‪] / /‬ا[ ‪)/ /‬ﻠ(ﮏ )ٯـ(‪)//‬ﻬ(]ﺎ[ ‪]/ /‬ﻠﺎ[ ‪]/ /‬ﺳﻞ[‬
‫‪380‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪) / /‬ا( ]ٯﺎ[ } { ]ح‪ 381‬ٯٮﻬﺎ ا ر و[ )ﺣﺎ( ]ﻣﮟ ٮـ[‪]//‬ٮ[ ‪]/ /‬ٮﯽ ۝[ ‪) / /‬ا( ]و[ )ا( ‪] //‬ﻋ[‪ //‬ا‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫‪) /‬ا ں( ]ٯـ[)ﻰ( ‪) / /‬ﻟﮏ( ]ﻻ ٮٮ[ )ﻻ( ]و ﻟ[)ﻰ( ]ا ﻟ[‪]/ /‬ﻰ[ ‪]/ /‬ﻬ[ﺎ ‪)//‬ﻠ(‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪370‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The text might have ḥīna instead of idh.‬‬
‫‪371‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪This word may be taṭawwafu.‬‬
‫‪372‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪This word may be fa-radadnāka.‬‬
‫‪373‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The last letter in this part may be mīm.‬‬
‫‪374‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪This word may be bi-āyātinā.‬‬
‫‪375‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The text is probably wa-an instead of aw an.‬‬
‫‪376‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The last letter in this part might be kāf.‬‬
‫‪377‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The text might have ilayka an arsil instead of fa-arsil.‬‬
‫‪378‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The text seems to have fa-mā instead of fa-man.‬‬
‫‪379‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪This yā’ may belong to fī (verse 52).‬‬
‫‪380‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The text may have arsala instead of anzala.‬‬
‫‪381‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪There seems to be fa-akhraja instead of fa-akhrajnā.‬‬
‫‪] /‬ٮﺤﺮ[ )ﺣ(ﮑ‪] //‬ٮﺎ ر[ ‪) //‬ا( ]ﺣﺮ ﯼ[ )۝( ‪) //‬ﻟ(‪]//‬ﺪ[ ا ر ]ٮٮـ[)ﻪ(‬ ‫‪]/ /‬ﻬﺎ[ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪) 383/‬ﻟ(‪)/ /‬ﺎ( ]ﻣ[ﮟ ]ا[ ‪//‬‬ ‫‪] /‬ا[ ‪)//‬ﻰ( ۝ ]ٯـ[ﻞ ا ٮـ)ٮٮـ(‪/ 382//‬‬ ‫‪] /‬آﻠ[‪]//‬ﺎ[ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫‪ /‬ٮـ‪]/ /‬ﺮ[ )ﻣ(‪)//‬ﻠ(]ﻪ ٯـ[ﺎ ‪]/ /‬ﻞ[ ‪]/ /‬ٮـ[)ﺎ( ]و[ )ٮـ(‪]//‬ٮـﮏ ﻣﻮ[‬ ‫‪/‬ﻰ )۝( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪]/‬ﮟ[ ‪] //‬ﻻ[ )ا( ‪]//‬ٮ[ ‪//‬ﮑ‪]//‬ﺎ[ ‪]//‬ﻮ[ )ﯼ( ]ٯﻞ[ ‪) / /‬ﻋ(]ﺪ[‬ ‫‪]//‬ﺪ[ ا )ﻻ( ‪)//‬ﺤﻠ(‪/‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫]ﮐﻢ[ و ‪ / / 384/ /‬ﻟ‪ / /‬و )ا( ]ں[ ‪) / /‬ا( ﻟ]ٮﺎ س[ ‪]/ /‬ﻰ ۝[‬ ‫‪29‬‬
‫‪385‬‬
‫‪] /‬ﻣﻮ ﺳ[)ﻰ( ٮﻮ )ٮـ(]ﻠ[‪/ /‬‬ ‫]ٯﺤﻤﻊ[ ‪]//‬ﺮ[ )ﻋ(‪] //‬ں[ ‪)//‬ٮـ(‪] //‬ﻩ[ )ٮﻢ ا( ‪)//‬ﻰ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪{ }/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪386‬‬
‫‪]/‬ﮑﺎ[‬ ‫‪) /‬و( ‪]/ /‬ﻠ[)ﻰ( ‪)/ /‬ﻠ(‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬
‫)‪Folio 15 B (Q 20.61 – 20.80‬‬
‫‪ /‬ا ]ﻣ[‪) //‬ه(‪) //‬ٮٮـ(‪)//‬ﻬ(‪//‬‬ ‫]ٮـﻌ[)ﺪ ٮ و( ]ٯﺪ[ ‪] / /‬ٮ ﻣ[)ﮟ ا( ]ٯٮﺮ[ ﯼ ٯٮـ‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ٮﻢ ]ٯـ[ﺎ ]ﻣﻮ[ ا ]و[ ‪) //‬ﺳ(ﺮ )و( ]ا ﻣ[)ﮟ د و ٮـ(]ﻬﻤ[)ﺎ ا( ﻟ)ٮـﺤ(ﻮ )ﯼ ۝( ٯﺎ ]ﻟ[)ﻮ( ا‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫)ﻣ(ﺎ د ا ں ا ﻻ )ﺳﺤﺮ ں( ]ٮﺮ[ )ٮﺪ ں( ﻟٮـﺤ]ﺮ ﺣﮑ[)ﻢ ﻣ(ﮟ ا )ر( ﺻ)ﮑﻢ و( ٮﺪ ه)ٮﺎ(‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻣٮـ]ﮑ[)ﻢ ٮـ(ﺎ ﻟ]ﻄ[)ﺮ ٮٯـ(]ﻪ[ ا ﻟ)ﻤ(ٮﻠﯽ ۝ )ٯﺎ( ﺣﻤﻌ)ﻮ ا آ(ٮـ‪ //‬ﮐﻢ ٯﺎ ]ٮﻮ ا[‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺻ)ٯـ(ﺎ و )ٯـ(]ﺪ[ ا ٯـ)ﻠ(ﺢ ا )ﻟ(‪//‬ﻮ ]م[ ﻣ} { )ا( ]ﺳ[)ٮـ(]ﻌ[)ﻠ(‪ //‬۝ )ٯـ(ﺎ )ﻟﻮ( ا )ٮﻤﻮ ﺳﯽ( ]ا[‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫)ٮـ(ﺤﮟ )ٮـ(ﻠ)ٯﯽ( ا )و( ا ]ٮـ[ٮ ]ا[ و ل ]ﻣ[)ﮟ( ]ا[} {]ٯﯽ ٯﻞ[ ا )ﻟٯﻮ ا( ٯﺎ ]ﻟٯـ[‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪387‬‬
‫ٯﺎ د ]ا[ ﺣ]ٮـ[)ٮـﻠﻬ(ﻢ ]و[ )ﻋﺼ(ٮـ]ﻬ[} { ‪)/ /‬ٮﻞ( ا ﻟ)ٮﻪ ا( ٮـ)ﻬﺎ( ]ﻣ[‪] //‬ﺳﺤ[‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪ 388/‬ٯـ)ﻠ(} { )ٮﻤﻮ( ]ﺳ[‪) //‬ﻻ( ٮـ)ﺤ(ڡ‬ ‫ٮـ)ﺴ(ﻌﻰ ۝ )ٯﺎ و ﺣ(]ﺲ[ )ٯﯽ( ٮـ‪]//‬ﺴ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪ //‬ٮﮏ ا ٮـ)ٮ ا ﻻ ﻋ(ﻠ)ﻰ( ۝ ٯـ)ﺎ(}{)ﻟ(]ٯ ﻣ[]ﺎ[ ]ﻣﻌ[)ﮏ( ]ٮـﻠ[}{ڡ )ﻣﺎ( ‪//‬ﻤ]ﻠﻮ[‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ﻻ ‪)/ /‬ﻠ(‪) //‬ا( ]ﻟﺴﺤﺮ ﺣٮٮ[‬ ‫‪390‬‬
‫ا ]ٮـﻤ[)ﺎ ﻋﻤﻠ(]ﻮ ا ﮐٮﺪ[ ‪){ }/ /‬و( ]ا[ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪389‬‬
‫ا‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ٯـ)ﺎ ﻟٯڡ( ]ﻣ[)ﺎ( ﻋ]ﻤ[ﻠﻮ ا ]و[ ا )ﻟ(}{)ﻰ( ا‬ ‫‪391‬‬
‫ا )ﺗﯽ( ۝ ٯـ)ﺎ( ‪)/ /‬ﻰ( ‪//‬ﺎ ﻣ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ﻟ)ﺴﺤ(ﺮ ﻩ ]ﺳ[‪]//‬ﺪ[ ‪] //‬و[ )ٯﺎ ﻟﻮ( ا )ا( ‪) / /‬ٮـ(‪ //‬ٮ ]هﺮ و ں و ﻣﻮ ﺳ[ﻰ ۝ )ٯـ(ﻞ‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ا )ﻣٮـ(ٮﻢ )ﻟ(‪] //‬ٯـ[)ٮﻞ ا( ‪) //‬ا( ]د[ )ں ﻟﮑﻢ ا( ‪) / /‬ﻟ(]ﮑٮٮﺮ[ )ﮐﻢ ا ﻟ(‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪392‬‬
‫ٯـ)ﻞ(‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪382‬‬
‫‪) This word may be a-ataytanā.‬‬
‫‪383‬‬
‫‪) This part may contain bi-siḥrika.‬‬
‫‪384‬‬
‫‪) The last letter in this part may be kāf.‬‬
‫‪385‬‬
‫‪) The text may be yā waylakum.‬‬
‫‪386‬‬
‫‪) The text may have ifkan instead of the standard kadhiban.‬‬
‫‪387‬‬
‫‪) This word may be siḥrihim.‬‬
‫‪388‬‬
‫‪) Considering the amount of space, the word khīfah may be missing.‬‬
‫‪389‬‬
‫‪) This word may be ʽamilū.‬‬
‫‪390‬‬
‫‪) This word might be innahu. See the parallels in Q 6.21, 6.135, 10.17,‬‬
‫‪23.117, 28.37, and 30.45.‬‬
‫‪391‬‬
‫‪) The text may be fa-alqā mā maʽahu.‬‬
‫‪392‬‬
‫‪) The scribe has copied qāla twice.‬‬
‫)ﻋ(]ﻠﻤﮑ[)ﻢ ا( ﻟ]ﺴﺤ[‪] //‬ٯـ[ﺴٮـ)ﻌﻠ(}{)ﻮ( ں )۝ ﻻ( ‪] //‬ٯـ[)ﻄﻌﮟ( ا )ٮﺪ( ٮـ}{‪) //‬و( ا ر‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫ﺣﻠ)ﮑ(]ﻢ[ ﻣﮟ )ﺣ(ﻠ)ٮـ(ڡ )و( ﻻ}{‪)//‬ﻠ(‪]/ /‬ﻢ ٯـ[)ﻰ( ]ﺣ[)ﺪ و( ]ع[ )ا( ﻟ]ٮـﺤ[)ﻞ و( ‪)//‬ٮـ(‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ا ٮـ‪//‬ﺎ ]ا ﺳ[ﺪ ﻋﺪ )ٮﺎ( ‪] / /‬ٮٯـ[ﻰ ۝ ٯﺎ )ﻟﻮ( ا )ﻻ( ﺻ)ٮﺮ( ﻟ]ﮟ[ ‪ / /‬ﮎ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫ﻣﮟ ا ﻟ]ٮٮـ[‪]//‬ٮ و[ ا )ﻟ(]ﺪ[ ﯼ )ٯـ(ﻄ)ﺮ( ٮﺎ ‪) / /‬ٯـ(]ﺺ[ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪393‬‬
‫]ﻋ[ﻠ)ﻰ( ﻣﺎ ا )ٮـ(‪//‬ٮﺎ‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫)ا ٮـ(‪) / /‬ٯﺺ( ا )ٮـ(]ﻤﺎ[ ‪)//‬ٯـﺼ(]ﻰ[ )ٯﯽ( ه]ﺪ ﻩ[ ا ]ﻟﺤٮﻮ ﻩ ا ﻟ[‪]/ /‬ﺎ ا[ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫ٮـ]ﻄﻤﻊ[ ا ں )ٮـﻌ(]ٯـ[)ﺮ( ﻟ)ٮـ(ﺎ ]ر[ )ٮٮـ(ﺎ )ﺣ(]ﻄٮٮـ[)ﺎ( ]و ﻣ[ﺎ )ا( ]آ[‪/ /{ }/ /‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫و )ا( ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﺣٮﺮ )و( ا ٮـ]ٯـ[ﻰ ۝ ا )ٮﺎ( ٯـ]ﺪ[} { ]ﺣ[} { )ا(‬ ‫‪394‬‬
‫)و ﻣ(ﺎ ‪)//‬ﺴ(]ﺤﺮ[ ‪//‬ﺎ‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫ا( ٮﻪ )ﻣ(ﮟ ﻣٮ ]ﻣﺤﺮ ﻣ[ﺎ ]ٯـ[)ﺎ( ]ں[ ﻟ]ﻪ[ )ﺣﻬٮـ(ﻢ ]ﻻ[} {]ﻤﻮ ٮ ٯـ[‪)//‬ﻬ(ﺎ‬ ‫‪395‬‬
‫]ﻟ[‪)/ /‬ﺎ‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫و ]ﻻ[ ‪)/ /‬ﻰ ۝( ]و[ ‪) / /‬ﺣ(ﺎ ر )ٮﻪ( ﻣ)ﻮ( ﻣ)ٮﺎ( )ٯـ(ﺪ ]ﻋ[ﻤﻞ ]ا[ ﻟ]ﺼ[)ﻠ(‪ / /‬ٯﺎ‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪) /‬ﻟ(‪)//‬ﻢ( ]ا[ )ﻟﺪ( ]ر[ ‪//‬ٮ ا ﻟ]ﻌ[)ﻠ(ﻰ ۝ )ﺣ(ٮـ)ٮ( ]ﻋﺪ ں[ ‪]//‬ﺤ[)ﺮ( ﯼ ‪)//‬ﺤٮـ(ﻬﺎ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫‪397‬‬
‫)و( ‪/ /‬ﺎ‬ ‫‪396‬‬
‫)ا( ]ﻻ ٮـ[‪) / /‬ﺣﻠ(]ﺪ[ ٮـ]ﮟ[ )ٯٮـ(ﻬ)ﺎ( د ﻟﮏ ‪]//‬ﺮ ا[ )ﻣﮟ( } {‪]/ /‬ﻰ ۝[ ٯـ]ﺎ[‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪/‬ﺎ‬ ‫]ا ﻟﯽ[ )ﻣﻮ( ‪) / /‬ا ں( ]ا[ ﺳﺮ ٮـ)ﻌٮـ(ﺪ ﯼ ﻟ]ٮﻼ[ } {‪] / /‬ﺻﺮ ٮ[ ﻟﻬ‪/‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪ /‬ٯـ)ﺎ ٮـ(]ٮـﻌ[)ﻬ(ﻢ‬ ‫‪] / /‬ا ﻟ[‪) / /‬ٮـ(‪]//‬ﺴﺎ ﻻ ٮـ[)ﺤ(]ڡ[ )ٯٮﻪ د( ]ر[ ‪) / /‬و( ]ﻻ[ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫]ٮﺤٮﻮ[ ‪] / /‬ٯﺮ ﻋﻮ[ ں ٯـ]ﻌ[ﺴ]ٮـ[)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ ﻣ)ﮟ( ا ]ﻟ[‪] / /‬ﻣ[‪] //‬ﻋﺴٮـﻬ[‪] / /‬و[‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪] /‬ﻣ[‪] //‬و ﻣﺎ[ )ه(ﺪ ﯼ ‪/ /‬ﻰ ا )ﺳﺮ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪] /‬ﻋ[‪/‬‬ ‫} {]ﺻ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫)‪Folio 30 B (Q 20.122 – 20.133‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪}/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{‬ ‫‪]/‬ﻤ[‪)//‬ٮﮟ(‪] 398‬۝[ ٯـ)ﺎ( }‬ ‫ا ﻣ‪/‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪}/‬‬ ‫ٮـ‪//‬ﻞ ]و[ )ﻻ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻣﻌ‪)/ /‬ﻪ( ﺻٮـ]ﮑ[ﺎ )و( ]ٮﺤﺴﺮ[ }‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪ /‬ا ﻋ]ﻤ[‪] //‬و[ ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫)ﻟﻢ( ]ﺣﺴ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{‬ ‫]ا ٮـ[‪)/ /‬ﺎ( ]ٯـ[‪)/ /‬ٮـ(‪)//‬ﻬ(ﺎ ]و[ آ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪393‬‬
‫‪) This word may be ātānā.‬‬
‫‪394‬‬
‫‪) This word is probably saḥarnā/saḥḥarnā.‬‬
‫‪395‬‬
‫‪) The text may have innā qad ūḥiya ilaynā in addition to the standard‬‬
‫‪text. Cf. Q 20.48.‬‬
‫‪396‬‬
‫‪) This putative alif may be disconnected from the previous letter, in which‬‬
‫‪case the previous letter would be wa-.‬‬
‫‪397‬‬
‫‪) The text seems to have fa-awḥaynā instead of wa-laqad awḥaynā.‬‬
‫‪398‬‬
‫‪) Considering the traces, the text might have ihbiṭū minhā ajmaʽīn instead‬‬
‫‪of ihbiṭā minhā jamīʽan. Also, the phrase baʽḍukum li-baʽḍin ʽaduwwun is either‬‬
‫‪missing or precedes the putative ihbiṭū.‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪) / /‬ﻣ(ﮟ ا )ﺳ(‪] //‬ڡ[ و )ﻟ(]ﻢ[ ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫{‬ ‫]ﺳ[‪ //‬و ا ٮٯﯽ ا و )ﻟﻢ( ٮـ)ﻬ(‪} / /‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{‬ ‫و )ں ٮﻤﺴﻮ( ں ٯـ)ﻰ ﻣﺴﮑٮـ(ﻬ‪] //‬ا[ }‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ا ]ﻟٮـ[)ﻬﻰ( ]و[ )ﻟ(ﻮ ﻻ )آ(ﻠ‪] / /‬ﺳ[ٮٯـ]ٮ[}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻟ)ﺤﮑﻢ( ]ر[ ‪} //‬‬
‫‪401‬‬
‫ﻣ‪) / /‬ٯـ(ﺎ ﺻ]ﻄ[‪/ /‬‬
‫‪400‬‬ ‫‪399‬‬
‫ا ‪]//‬ﻠﺎ[‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٯٮﻞ )ﻃ(ﻠ‪ / /‬ﻟ]ﺴ[ﻤ]ﺲ[ )و ٯـ(ٮﻞ ‪} / /‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻃﺮ ]ڡ[ ا ﻟ‪]//‬ﻬ[‪) //‬ﻟ(]ﻌ[ﻠ)ﮏ( ]ٮـ[ﺮ )ﺻﯽ( و )ﻻ( ٮـ]ﻤ[‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻣ]ٮـ[ﻬ]ﻢ[ ا ‪) //‬و ﺣ(]ﺎ[ ﻣﮟ ر ]هﺮ[ ﻩ ا ]ﻟ[ﺤ]ٮﻮ ﻩ[ }‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫{‬ ‫و ]ر[ )ر( ]ٯ[ ‪ //‬ٮﮏ )ﺣٮـ(]ﺮ[ )و( ]ا[ )ٮٯـ(ﻰ ]۝[ و )ا( ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {]و[ ا ﺻ)ﻄ(]ٮﺮ[ )ﻋﻠ(‪ / /‬ﻻ )ٮـ(]ﺴ[ﻠ)ﮏ( ]ر ر[ )ٯـ(]ﺎ[ }‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫{‬ ‫۝ و ]ٯﻠﻮ ا[ }‬ ‫‪402‬‬
‫} {ﻟ}{]ٯـ[ٮﻪ ﻻ } {]و[ ا ﻟٮٯﻮ ﯼ‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫)‪Folio 30 A (Q 21.5 – 21.19‬‬
‫‪) /‬ٯﻼ( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫{‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{ ٯـ‪]//‬ﻠﮏ ﻣ[)ﮟ( ٯﺮ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{‪//‬ٮـ]ﺎ[ ٯٮـﻠ)ﮏ( ]ا[ )ﻻ( ]ر[‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{ ‪]/ /‬ﺪ آ[‪) //‬ا( ‪ //‬آٮٮـ)ﻢ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{ ﮐﻠﻮ ں ا ﻟ)ﻄ(ﻌ)ﻢ( و ﻣﺎ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{ ‪//‬ﻮ )ﻋﺪ( ٯﺎ ‪)//‬ﺤ(ٮٮﺎ ﻣﮟ )ٮـﺴ(ﺎ )و(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪403‬‬
‫{ )ﮐٮٮ( ا ٮﺮ )ﻟٮـ(‪ //‬ﻋﻠٮـﮑ)ﻢ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫{ )و( ﮐﻢ ٯﺼﻤٮﺎ )ﻣ(ﮟ ٯـ)ﺮ( ‪]//‬ﻪ[‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{ ‪) //‬ٮﺴﺎ( ٮﺎ ٮﻌﺪ هﺎ ٯـ)ﻮ ﻣ(ﺎ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{‪] / /‬ﺳٮـ[ﺎ ا د ا ه]ﻢ[ )ﻣ(‪)//‬ﻬ(ﺎ ٮـ)ﺮ آ(]ﺼ[ﻮ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{‪]//‬ﻮ[ ا ا )ﻟ(ﻰ ﻣ)ﺎ( ا ]ٮﺮ[ ‪ / /‬ٯـ)ٮﻪ و(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{ ]ٯـ[ﻠﻮ ا ]ٮـ[ﻮ ٮﻠٮـ)ﺎ( ا ٮـ)ﺎ( آ)ٮـ(ﺎ ﻃﻠ]ﻤٮـ[ﮟ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪) /‬ﺣٮﺎ( ﺣ)ﻌﻠ(ٮـ‪) / /‬ﺣ(]ﺼ[ٮﺪ ا‬ ‫{‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪399‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪This word may be ajalan.‬‬
‫‪400‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪This word may be fa-ṣṭabir.‬‬
‫‪401‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The text appears to have li-ḥukmi rabbika instead of ʽalā mā yaqūlūna.‬‬
‫‪402‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The text might be li-l-birri wa-l-taqwā (cf. Q 5.2 and 58.9).‬‬
‫‪403‬‬
‫)‬ ‫‪The text might be wa-hādhā kitābun anzalnā ʽalaykum.‬‬
‫]ﻬ[ﻤﺎ‬//[‫]ﺴ[ﻤﻮ ٮ و ا ﻻ ر ص ]و ﻣ[ﺎ ]ٮٮـ‬// { } 14

(‫{ )ا( ں )ٮٮـ(]ﺤ[ﺪ ﻟﻬﻮ ا )ﻻ( ٮـﺤ)ﺪ( ]ٮﻪ ﻣ[ﮟ )ﻟﺪ ٮﺎ ا ں‬ } 15
[‫]ﺪ‬/ / (‫]ﻄ[)ﻞ‬//(‫]ﺤٯ[ )ﻋ(ﻠ)ﻰ ا ﻟ‬// ‫)ﺪ ڡ( ٮﺎ‬/ / { } 16
(‫ﻞ ]ﻣﻤ[)ﺎ‬// [‫ )ا ﻟ(]ﻮ‬/ / (‫ ]ر[ ه]ٯ[ )و‬/ /
404
{ } 17
{ } ‫ ں ۝ و ﻟ]ﻠﻪ[ ﻣﮟ ٯﯽ ا ﻟﺴﻤﻮ‬//(‫{ ٮـﺼ)ٯـ‬ } 18
Folio 10 A (Q ? – 24.1–13)
/ /{ }/ / ‫{ اﻟﺮ‬ } 1
/ /{ }~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{ } 2
/ /{ }(‫{۝ ﺳﻮ ر ﻩ ا ]ٮﺮ[ ﻟٮـ)ﻬ‬ } 3
/ /{ }(‫{)ٮ( )ﻣٮـ(]ٮـٮـ[ٮ ﻟﻌﻠﮑﻢ ٮﺪ )آ‬ } 4
/ /{ }//‫{ )ﺣﻠﺪ و( ا ﮐﻞ و ﺣ‬ } 5
/ /{ } ‫{ ]ﺣ[)د( ﮐﻢ ٮﻬﻤﺎ )ر( ا ٯﻪ‬ } 6
/ /(‫)ﻬ‬// { }‫ں ٮﺎ ﻟﻟﻪ و ا ﻟ‬/ /‫ٮـ ﻣﻮ ﻣ‬405
7
/ / (‫)ﮐﺢ ا‬/ / { } (‫ﻃﺎ )ٮٯﻪ( )ﻣ(ں ا ﻟ]ﻣﻮ ﻣٮـ[)ٮﮟ ۝‬ 8
(‫{ٮﮑﺢ }{)ا( ﻻ ر ]ٮـ[ﺎ )او‬ }//‫)ٮـ(ٮﻪ ا و )ﻣﺴﺮ ﮐﻪ( و ا ﻟﺮ ٮـ‬ 9
‫} { ﻟ]ﻤو[ )ﻣٮٮﮟ( ]۝[ و اﻟﺪٮﮟ‬// [‫)ﻣﺴﺮ( ﮐﺎ و )ﺣﺮ( م )د( ﻟ]ﮏ‬ 10
/ /[‫]ﻬ‬/ / [‫ٮﺮ ﻣﻮ ں ا ﻟﻤﻮ ﻣٮٮ و ﻟﻢ )ٮﺎ( ]ٮـ[ﻮ ا ]ﻋ[)ﻟ(]ٮﻬﮟ‬ 11
[‫ ﻻ )ﺣﺪ( ]ﻣٮﻬﻢ‬/ / ‫ا ٯﺎ ﺣﻠﺪ و هﻢ ٮﻤٮٮﮟ ﺣﻠﺪ ﻩ و ﻻ‬ 12
‫ )ا ﻻ ا( ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ‬/ /[‫)ﺳﻬﺪ ﻩ( ا ٮﺪ ا و ا و ﻟٮﮏ هﻢ ا ﻟٯـ]ﺴ‬ 13
(‫]ٮـ[ﺎ )ٮـ(و ا و )ا( ﺻﻠﺤﻮ ا ٯﺎ )ں( ا ﻟﻟﻪ )ﻋٯﻮ( ر ر )ﺣٮﻢ ۝ و ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ‬ 14
[‫ ا اﻻ ا ]ٮـ[)ٯـ(]ﺴﻬم‬/ / ‫ٮﺮ ﻣﻮ ں ا ر و ﺣﻬﻢ و )ﻟﻢ( ٮﮑﮟ ﻟﻬﻢ‬ 15
404
) No text seems to be written before the present point, as writing here
would have interfered with the previous line.
405
) This tooth looks like an insertion. Also, the grapheme ‫ ٮﻮﮟ‬seems to have
been added after the mīm that follows ‫ﻣﻮ‬. These additions have the same thick-
ness and curvature as the usual script, but have a dark greenish hue. The word
may have been mu’minūn before these changes. It is less certain what the modi-
fier wished to turn this word into. In light of the addition of a tooth before the
initial ‫ﻣﻮ‬, the first guess would be bi-mu’minīn. But the greenish traces that
follow the second mīm conform to ‫ ٮﻮﮟ‬better than they do to ‫ٮٮﮟ‬. Perhaps the
modifier conflated the first mīm with wāw (due to not seeing the wāw that fol-
lows it), and tried to make the remaining legible traces conform to the word
tu’minūna.
‫ ﻟﻤﮟ( ا‬406‫ )ا ٮﯽ‬/ / (‫)ﻬ(د ﻩ ا ﺣﺪ هﻢ ا ر ٮﻊ )ﺴ(ﻬد ٮ )ٮﺎ‬/ /(‫)ٯـ‬ 16

/ / (‫]ٮﻪ[ )ا( ں آ)ﺎ ں‬/ / ‫ﻟﺼﺪ ٯٮﮟ ۝ و ا ﻟﺣﻤﺴ]ﻪ[ ا ں ﻟﻌٮﻪ ا‬ 17
{ }(‫ )ٮﺴﻬﺪ ا ر‬/ / [‫)ﻋ(]ٮـ[)ﻬﺎ( ا ﻟﻌﺪ ا ]ٮ‬ 407
‫ ا‬/ / (‫اﻟﮑﺪ ٮٮﮟ ۝ )و‬ 18
{ }/ / (‫ )ﻟﻤﮟ( ا ﻟﮑﺪ )ٮٮﮟ ۝( و )ا‬/ / ‫ﺳﻬﺪ )ٮ( ٮﺎ ﻟﻟﻪ ا‬ 19
{ }[‫ ]و ﻟ‬/ / [‫ﻋﺼٮ ا ﻟﻟﻪ ﻋﻠٮﻬﺎ ا ں ﮐﺎ ں ]ﻤ[ﮟ ا )ﻟ(]ﺼد‬ 20
{ } ‫ٯﺼﻞ ا ﻟﻟﻪ ]ﻋ[ﻠ]ٮـ[ﮐﻢ و )ر ﺣﻤٮﻪ( ﻣﺎ ر ﮐﯽ ﻤ]ٮﮑﻢ[ ﻣﮟ‬ 21
{ } ‫ا ٮﺪ ا )و( ﻟﮑﮟ ا ﻟﻟﻪ )ٮﻮ ا ٮ ﺣﮑ(ٮـﻢ } { و )ا(]ں[ )اﻟﺪ( ٮﮟ‬ 22
{ }//‫ ﻣﺎ ا آٮـﺴ‬/ /[‫ں ]ﻤ‬ 408
[‫ٮﻼ ٯﮏ ﻋﺼٮﻪ ﻟﮑﻞ ا ]ﻣﺮ‬ 23
{ } (‫ا ﻻ )ٮـ(م ﻻ ﭠﺣ)ﺴٮـﻮ( ﻩ هﻮ ﺳﺮ ﻠ)ﮑ(م ]ٮـ[ل )هﻮ ﺣ(ٮﺮ )ﻟﮑﻢ‬ 24
{ } ‫ﻟﻪ ﻋﺪ ا ٮ ﻋﻄٮﻢ ۝ ﻟﻮ‬ 409
//{ }(‫ )آ‬/ /(‫ﻟﺪ ﯼ ]ٮـ[و )ﻠ‬ 25
{ } ‫ ﻩ طﮟ ا ]ﻟﻤﻮ[ ﻤ)ٮـٮـ(ں و ا ﻠ)ﻣﻮ( ﻤ)ٮٮ( ٮﺎ‬/ /(‫)ﺴﻤﻌ‬ 26
{ }‫]ا[ ]و[ )ٯﻠﻮ ا( ]هﺪ[ )ا( ا ٯﮏ ﻤ)ٮـٮـ(ں ۝ ﻟﻮ ﻻ ﺣ‬/ /[‫]ﺣ‬ 27
Folio 10 B (Q 24.13 – 24.23)
{ } 410(‫)ا‬/ / (‫)ا‬/ /[‫{ ]ٮﺎ‬ } // { } 1

{ }/ /‫ﻻ‬/ /{ } / /‫ﻠ‬ 2
{ } ‫{ﺪ ٮٮﺎ و ا ﻻ ﺣﺮ ﻩ‬ } ‫ﻟﻟﻪ‬ 3
{ }[‫{ ﻋﺪ ا ٮ )ﻋﻂ(]ٮﻢ‬ } // 4
{ } ‫ )ﻠ(]و[ں ٮﺎ ٯﻮ هﮑﻢ ﻣﺎ‬//{ }/ /[‫]ا[ د ]ٮـ‬ 5
(‫{ ٮﻪ ه)ٮـٮـ(ﺎ )و هﻮ ﻋٮﺪ‬ } (‫]ﻟٮﺲ[ )ﻟﮑﻢ‬ 6
(‫{ د ﺳﻤﻌٮﻤﻮ ﻩ ٯـﻠٮـ]م[ )ﻣﺎ‬ } / /(‫)ﻄ‬/ /[‫]ا ﻟ‬ 7
‫{ ا ﺳٮﺤٮﮏ )ه(]د[ا ٮﻬٮﮟ‬ }(‫ ﻟٮﺎ ا )ں( ]ٮـٮـ[)ﮑ‬/ / 8
‫و ا ﻟﻤٮﻠﻪ ا‬ 411
/ / ‫)ﻟﻪ( } { ں‬/ /(‫)ﻋ‬ 9
406
) The traces match both innī and innanī.
407
) This alif has a dark green hue like the tooth at the beginning of line 7.
408
) The traces here could also represent four teeth, in which case the word
would be insān.
409
) The missing and illegible parts together can accommodate no more than
four letters.Therefore, minhum is probably missing.
410
) This alif might be the last letter of bi-l-shuhadā’, although the illegible
part preceding it seems rather small for the grapheme ‫ٮﺎﻟﺴﻬﺪ‬.
411
) The traces here do not quite conform to ‫ ;ٮﻌﻮد‬they are closer to ‫ٮﻌﺪ‬.
‫‪ /‬ﮐٮٮﻢ ﻣﻮ ﻣٮـ)ٮﮟ( ۝ و ﻠٮـٮـٮـ)ں(‪ 412‬ا ﻟﻟﻪ ﻟﮑﻢ ]و[ ا ]ﻠ[ﻟﻪ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪) /‬اں ا ﻟﺪ ]ٮـ[ں ]ٮﺤٮﻮ[ں ا ں )ٮـﺴٮـ(ﻊ ا ﻟٯﺤﺴﻪ‬ ‫)ﻋﻠٮﻢ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫]ٯﯽ[ ا )ﻟﺪ( ]ٮﮟ[ ا ]ﻣٮﻮ[ ا ﻠ]ﻬم[ ﻋﺪ ا ٮ ﻋﻄٮﻢ )۝( ]ٯـ[ﻰ‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪] / /‬ٮٮﺎ و[ )ا( ]ﻻ ﺣﺮ[ )ﻩ( )و ا( ﻟﻟﻪ ٮﻌﻠﻢ و )ا( ٮٮﻢ ﻻ‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫)ٮﻌﻠﻤﻮ( ں ۝ )و ﻟﻮ( ﻻ ٯﺼﻞ ا ﻟﻟﻪ ﻋﻠٮـ)ﮑ(]م[ و ر ﺣﻤ]ٮﻪ[‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪] //‬ا ں ا[ ‪) / /‬ر و( ڡ ‪)/ /‬ٮﻢ( ]۝[ ٮﺎ )ٮﻬﺎ( ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ا ﻤ]ٮﻮ[ ا‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫} { ٮٮٮﻌﻮ ا ]ﺣﻄﻮ[ ٮ ا ﻟﺴٮﻄﮟ ]و[ ﻣﮟ ٮٮٮﻊ ﺣﻄﻮ )ٮ(‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫} {]ﺳٮﻄﮟ[ ٯﺎ ]ٮﻪ[ ٮﺎ )ﻣﺮ( ٮﺎ ﻠٯـﺤ)ﺴ(]ﺎ[ )و( ا ﻠﻣٮـﮑ)ر( و ﻟﻮ ﻻ‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫} { ا ]ﻠﻠ[ﻪ ﻋﻠٮـ)ﮑم( و ر ‪]/ /‬ﻣٮـ[ﻪ ]ﻣﺎ[ ر )آ(ﻰ ﻣٮﮑﻢ ﻣﮟ ا‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫} { ا ‪) / /‬ا و( ﻟﮑﮟ ا ﻟﻟﻪ ]ٮـ[ر )آ(ﻰ ﻣﮟ ٮﺴﺎ )و( ا‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫{ ﺳﻤٮﻊ ﻋﻠٮﻢ ۝ و ﻻ ٮﺎ ]ٮﻞ[ ا و ﻻ ا ﻠٯـ)ﺻﻞ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫{ و ا ﻠﺴ)ﻌﻪ( ا )ں( ٮﻮ ٮﻮ ا ا ﻠٯـ]ٯـ[ر ا و ا‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫{]آ[ٮﮟ و ا ﻠﻤﻬ)ﺤ(ر ٮـ)ں( ٯﯽ ]ﺴٮـ[ٮﻞ ا )ﻟﻟﻪ( و ﻠٮـﻌ]ٯـ[و‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫{ ﻟٮﺼٯﺤﻮ ا ا ﻻ ]ٮـﺤ[ٮﻮ ں ا ں ٮﻌٯﺮ ا ﻠﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻟﮑﻢ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫‪413‬‬
‫{ )ا( ﻟﻟﻪ ﻋٯﻮ ر ر )ﺤ(]ٮـ[م ۝ و ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ٮـ‪//‬د ٯـ]و[ ں‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫ٯـ)ٮ( ﻠ)ﻌٮﻮ( ا‬ ‫‪414‬‬
‫{ ﻠ]ﻤ[)ﺤ(ﺼٮـ‪ / /‬ا ﻟﻌٯﻠٮ ا ﻠ)ﻤ(‪/ /‬د‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫)‪Folio 11 A (Q 24.23 – 24.32‬‬
‫)ٯﯽ( ا ﻟﺪ ]ٮـٮـ[ﺎ )و( ا ]ﻻ ﺣﺮ ﻩ و[ ﻟﻬﻢ ]ﻋﺪ[ ‪) //‬ٮ( ‪]/ /‬م‪ 415‬۝[‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ٮﻮ م ٮﺴﻬﺪ ﻋﻠٮﻬﻢ ]ا[ ٯﻮ هﻬﻢ و ا ٮﺪ ‪//‬ﻬﻢ و ا ر ﺤﻠﻬ]م[‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪ //‬ﺣﻠﻮ )د( هﻢ ٮﻤﺎ ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ ا ٮﮑﺴٮﻮ ں ۝ ٮﻮ )م( ا د ]ٮـ[ﻠ]ٯﻮ[ )ں(‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫)ا( ﻟﻟﻪ )ٯﺮ د( ﯼ ٯـٮـ]و[ ٯـٮـﻬ)م( د ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻬ)م( )و( ٮـﻌﻠﻤ]و[ ں ا ‪//‬ﻪ ا } {‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫]ﻠﺤ[)ٯ( ا ﻠ]ﻤٮـ[ٮﮟ ا ]ﻠﺨٮـ[ٮـ)ﺜ(ﺖ ﻠﻠ)ﺤ(ٮٮٮـ]ٮـ[ں و ا ﻠﺤ]ٮٮٮـ[ﻮ ﮟ ﻠﻠﺤٮٮٮـ]ٮ[‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫و ا ﻟﻄٮٮﻮ ﮟ ﻟﻠﻄٮٮٮ و ا ﻟﻄٮٮٮ ﻠ)ﻠﻄٮٮٮـ(ﮟ ا و ﻠ)ٮـ(‪{ } / /‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫آ]ﺮ[ ٮـ]م[ ۝ )و ﻻ(‬ ‫‪416‬‬
‫ﻣٮﺮ و ﮟ ﻣﻤﺎ ٮٯﻮ ﻟﻮ ﮟ ﻠﻬ]ﻢ[ )ﻤﻌ(ٯﺮ ﻩ )و( ا ]ﺤ[‪//‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪412‬‬
‫‪) There might be another tooth before this nūn, in which case the word‬‬
‫‪would be li-yatabayyana.‬‬
‫‪413‬‬
‫‪) This word could be yaqdhifūna.‬‬
‫‪414‬‬
‫‪) There is enough room in the illegible area before dāl for two letters. The‬‬
‫‪word may be al-mutaṣaddiqāti.‬‬
‫‪415‬‬
‫‪) The pale traces in the illegible part preceding mīm are more likely to be-‬‬
‫‪.‬اﻠٮـ ‪long to two graphemes than one. Specifically, they might belong to‬‬
‫‪416‬‬
‫‪) This word may be ajr.‬‬
{ } / / ‫ٮﺪ ﺤﻠ]و[ ا ٮٮٮﺎ ﺤ]ٮـ[ﺎ ٮﺴﻠﻤﻮ ا ﻋﻠﯽ ا هﻠ]ﻪ[ و ٮـﺴ)ٮـﺪ( ٮـﻮ ا‬ 8

(‫ )ا‬// (‫ﻟﮑﻢ ﺣٮﺮ ﻟﮑﻢ ﻠ]ﻌ[ﻠﮐﻢ ٮٮﺪ ﮐﺮ و ﮟ ۝ )ٯـ(ﺎ ﮟ )ﻠ(]م[ )ٮﺤﺪ‬ 9
[‫ٯٮﻪ ا ﺤ]د[ ا ٯﻼ ٮﺪ ﺣﻠﻮ ا ﺣٮﺎ ٮﻮ د ﮟ ]ﻠﮑ[م } { ﮟ ٯٮـ)ل( )ﻠ(]ﮑم‬ 10
[‫]ر‬/ /[‫ ا )ٯﺎ( ]ر[ )ﺤ(ﻌو ا هﻮ ﺣٮﺮ ﻟﮑﻢ ا ﮟ ا ﻠ]ﻠ[)ﻪ( ]ﺤ‬//‫)ا ر( ﺤﻌ‬ 11
‫]س[ )ﻋﻠٮﮑﻢ ﺤٮـ(ﺢ ٯﯽ )ٮٮٮ( ]ﻋٮﺮ[ ﻤ]ﻌ[ﻣﻮ ر ا‬//‫)ٮـ(ﻣﺎ ٮـﻌﻤﻠ]و[ ﮟ )۝( ﻠ‬ 12
‫ٮـ)د( ﺤﻠ)و( ﻩ ]ٯٮـ[)ﻪ( ﻤ)ٮﻊ( ﻟﮑﻢ ا ﮟ ا ﻟﻟﻪ ٮﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﺎ ٮٮﺪ و ﮟ و ﻣﺎ‬ 13
(‫)ﻃﻮ ا‬//‫ ا ﻤﮟ ا ٮﺼﺮ هﻢ و ٮـﺤ‬/ /‫ﻌ‬// (‫)ﮟ‬/ /‫ ﻤ‬/ /‫ٮـ]ﮑ[)ٮﻤﻮ( ﮟ ۝ ٯﻞ ﻠﻠ‬ 14
[‫ﺎ )ٮـﺼ(]ٮﻌﻮ‬// ‫ ا ﮟ ا ﻠ)ﻠ(]ﻪ[ )ٮـﻌ(ﻟﻢ‬/ / ‫ ﮐﯽ‬// (‫ ]د[ ﻟﮏ )ا‬/ /‫ و ﺤﻬ‬//‫ٯـ‬ 15
[‫ و ٮﺤٯﻂﮟ ]ٯﺮو‬417‫)ﮟ( ۝ و ٯﻞ )ﻠﻠ(]ﻣﻮ[ ]ﻤٮـ[ٮٮ ]ٮـﻌ[ﺼ)ﺼ(ﮟ ﻤﮟ ا ٮـﺼ]ر[ هﻢ‬ 16
‫)ﺻﺮ( ٮـﮟ‬//‫ ]ﻤٮـ[ﻬا )و( ﻠ‬//[‫ﺎ )ﻃ(]ﻬ‬// ‫]ﻬ[ﮟ ا ﻻ‬/ /[‫ ]و[ ﻻ ٮـ]ٮـ[د ٮـﮟ ]ر ٮـ‬//(‫ﺤ)ﻬ‬ 17
{ }‫)ه(ﮟ )ﻋ(ﻟﯽ ﺤ]ٮـ[و ٮـﻬﮟ و ﻻ ٮٮـ]د[ )ٮـ(ﮟ ر ٮـ)ٮٮـ(ﻬﮟ )ا( ﻻ )ﻻ( ر و ﺤ‬ 418
[‫]ﻣﺮ‬/ / 18
{} ‫ﻠ]ٮـ[ﻬﮟ ا و‬ 419
[‫]ﻮ‬//‫ا و ا ٮـٮـﻬﮟ ا و ا ٮﺎ ٮﻌﻮ ﻠٮـﻬﮟ او ٮٮﯽ ٮـ‬ 19
‫)ﻰ ا( ]ﺣﻮ[ ٮـﻬﮟ ا )و( ٮـ)ٮـ(ﻰ‬//‫ا ٮـٮـﻬﮟ او ا ﺣﻮ ٮـﻬﮟ ا و ٮـ‬ 20
‫ } { ا و ﻻ ا ﻻ ر ٮـ)ﻪ( ]ﻤ[ﮟ‬//[‫ا ﺣﻮ )ٮـﻬ(ﮟ ا و ا ]ﻠٮـٮـ[)ﻌ(]ٮـ[ﮟ ]ﻋٮـ‬ 21
[‫ا ﻟﺮ ﺣﻞ ا و ﻣﺎ ﻣﻠﮑٮ )ا( } {)ﻬ(ﮟ ا ﻟﺪ ٮـﮟ ﻠ]م‬ 22
420
‫ل‬//(‫)ط‬//‫ )و( ا ﻋﻠﯽ ﻋ]و ر[ ﻩ ا ﻠٮـ)ﺴ(ﺎ ا )و( ا ﻟﻮ ا ﻠ‬/ /[‫]ط‬// 23
‫و ا ا ﻟﺤﻠﻢ ا و ٮﺴٮـﻬﮟ ]و[ ﻻ‬//‫]ا ﻠ[)د( ]ٮـ[ﮟ ﻟﻢ ٮـٮـﻠ‬ 24
‫]ٮـ[)ﺼ(]ر[ ]ٮـ[ﮟ ٮﺎ ر ]ﺤﻠﻬ[ﮟ ﻟٮﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺤ]ٯـ[)ﯼ( ﻤﮟ ر )ٮـٮـٮـ(ﻬﮟ و‬ 25
‫]و[ ا )ا ﻠ(ﻰ } { )ا( ﻟﻟﻪ )ﺤﻤٮـ(ﻌﺎ ا ٮﻬﺎ ا ﻠ)ﻤ(و‬/ / 26
‫)ﻠ(]ﻌ[ﻟﮑﻢ ٮٯﻠﺤﻮ ﮟ ۝ و ا ٮﮑﺤﻮ ا ا ﻻ ٮﻤﯽ‬ 421
‫ﮟ‬/ / 27
{}// (‫]ﮟ[ ]ﻤ[)ﮟ( }{]ٮـﺪ ﮐﻢ[ }{ )ا‬/ /[‫]ﻠ‬/ /(‫]و[ )ا ﻠ‬ 422
(‫} {]ﻌﺼ[)ﺎ‬//[‫]ﻬ‬//[‫} {]ﮑﻢ ٮـﻌ‬ 28
417
) The use of the masculine pronoun here is a scribal error.
418
) The traces preceding the putative mīm do not quite conform to ‫ٮـﺤ‬.
419
) The traces after the tooth match a medial hā’ better than a medial ʽayn.
Perhaps the scribe made a mistake and wrote hā’ here.
420
) There is probably one letter between the first lām and ṭā’, because they
are not very close to each other. The second illegible part contains one letter
which can be fā’ or qāf or any of the tooth-shaped letters. Maybe the scribe
wanted to write al-ṭifl, but conflated it with al-wildān, writing an extra ‫اﻟﻮ‬. The
gap between the first lām and ṭā’ may also be explained by this scenario: the
scribe first wrote a dāl (belonging to al-wildān) after this lām but then erased it
and wrote ṭā’ slightly after this dāl.
421
) The nūn seems to be connected to a letter before it, and the traces before
nūn conform to ‫ ﻤٮـٮـ‬better than to ‫ﻣٮﻮ‬.
422
) The text here might be baʽḍuhum baʽḍan.
Folio 11 B (Q 24.32 – 24.40)
‫ ٮـ)ﮟ( ٮﻌٮﻬﻤﺎ ا ﻟﻟﻪ ﻤﮟ )ٯـ(ﺼﻟﻪ و ا‬423‫ﺮ‬/ / ‫} { )ﮟ ٮﮑﻮ ٮـ(]و[ ا‬ 1

(‫ا ﻟ]د[ ٮـﮟ ﻻ ٮـﺴ]ٮـ[ﻄٮـﻌ)و‬ 424
/ /‫)ﻟﻟﻪ( و ﺳﻊ ﻋﻠٮﻢ ۝ و ﻟ)ٮـ(ﺴ]ٮـﻌ[ٯـ‬ 2
‫]ں[ ٮﮑﺤﺎ ﻣ)ٮـ(ﮑ)ﻢ( ﺣٮﺎ )ٮـ(ﻌﻄﻬﻢ ا ﻟﻟﻪ )ﻣﮟ( )ٯـ(ﺼﻠﻪ ]و[ ا‬ 3
‫ )ا( ٮـﻤ)ٮـﮑ(ﻢ‬/ /(‫ ں )ا( ﻟ]ﮑ[ٮـ)ٮ( ﻣﻤﺎ ﻣ)ﻠ‬//‫}{ﺪ ]ٮـ[ﮟ )ٮـ(ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻌ‬ 4
‫]ٯـ[ﮑ)ٮٮﻮ( هﻢ ا ں ]ﻋ[ﻠﻤٮـﻢ ٯٮﻬﻢ )ﺣٮـ(ﺮ )ا( و ا ﻋﻄﻮ هﻢ‬ 5
‫ٮﮑﻢ )ﻋ(ﻠﻰ‬//‫ﻣﻤﺎ ر ر ٯﮑﻢ ا )ﻟﻟﻪ( و ﻻ ٮﮑﺮ هﻮ ا ٯـٮـ‬ 6
‫ﺎ ا ں ا )ر( ]د[ ں ٮﺤﺼٮﺎ ﻟ]ٮٮٮـﻌ[ﻮ ا ﻋﺮ )ص( ا‬/ / (‫}{ )ا‬ 7
‫} {)ٮﻮ( ﻩ ا ﻟﺪ )ٮٮﺎ( و ﻣﮟ ٮـ)ﮑر( هﻬ]ﮟ[ ٯﺎ )ں( ا ﻟﻟﻪ )ٮـﻌ(ﺪ‬ 8
‫]ٮ[ )ٮـ(ٮٮٮ‬// ‫ ﺣٮﻢ )۝( و ﻟ]ٯـ[)ﺪ( )ا( ٮﺮ ﻟٮﺎ ا‬425‫ا )آ(ﺮ هﻬﮟ ﻋٯﻮ )ر( ر‬ 9
‫ ا ﻟﺪ ]ٮـ[)ﮟ( ﺣﻠ)و( ]ﻣ[)ﮟ( ٯٮﻠﮑﻢ و ]ﻣ[)و( ﻋ]ﻄ[)ﻪ( ﻟﻠﻤٮـٯٮـﮟ ۝‬426(‫و ]ﻣٮـ[ﻠﺎ ﻣ)ﮟ‬ 10
‫ )ﻻ( ر ص ﻣ)ٮﻞ( ]ٮﻮ ر[ )ﻩ( ]آ[ﻤﺴﮑﻮ‬// [‫ﻠﻪ ٮﻮر اﻟﺴﻤﻮ ٮ ]و‬//{} 11
‫ )ٯـ(ٮﻬﺎ ﻣﺼ)ٮﺢ( و ا ﻟﻤﺼٮﺢ ٯﯽ )ر( ﺣﺤﻪ و ا ﻟﺮ ﺣﺤ]ﻪ[ ﮐﺎ‬// 12
[‫)ﻬ(ﺎ ﮐﻮ ]ﮐٮ[ )د( ر ﯼ ٮـ)ﻮ( )ٯـ(ﺪ ﻣﮟ ﺳﺤ)ﺮ( ﻩ )ﻣٮﺮ( ﮐﻪ ر ٮـ)ٮـ(]ﻮ‬// 13
‫ ﻣﮟ ٯٮﻞ‬427‫ ﻻ ﺳﺮ ٯٮﻪ و )ﻻ( ﻋﺮ ]ٮـ[ٮﻪ ٮﮑﺎ د ر ٮٮﻬﺎ ٮـﺼ)ٮـ(ﺎ‬// 14
‫ )ں( ٮﻤﺴﻪ ٮﺎ ر ٮﻮ ر ﻋ)ﻠ(ﻰ ٮﻮ ر ٮﻬﺪ )ﯼ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮٮﻮ ر ﻩ‬// 15
‫ﻞ )ﻟﻠ(]ٮـ[)ﺎ( ]س[ ﻟﻌﻠﻬﻢ‬//(‫)ﻪ( ]ا[ )ﻻ ﻣ‬//‫]ﮟ[ ٮـ)ﺴ(ﺎ )و( ٮـ)ﺼ(ﺮ ٮ ا ﻟ‬// 16
[‫ٮﻮ ]ٮ[ ا د )ں( ا )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ ا ں ]ٮـ[ﺮ ٯـ]ﻊ‬// ‫ )و( ں )۝( ]ٯـ[ﻰ‬/ /{ } 17
[‫ﻤﻪ ٮـﺴ)ٮـ(ﺢ ٯٮﻬﺎ ٮﺎ ﻟﻌﺪ و ]و‬/ / ‫} { ٮﺪ ﮐﺮ ٯـ)ٮـﻬ(ﺎ ا‬ 18
‫ﺤ]ﺮ[ ﻩ و ﻻ ٮٮﻊ ﻋﮟ‬// (‫ ﻻ ﺻﻞ ر ﺣٮﻞ ﻻ ٮـﻠﻬٮـ)ﻬﻢ‬//{} 19
‫ ا )ﻟﻠ(ﻪ و ا )ٯـ(ﻢ ا ﻟ]ﺼ[ﻠ)ﻮ( ]ﻩ[ )و( ا )ٮـ(ﺎ ا ﻟﺮ ﮐﻮ‬//[‫)د( ]آ‬ 20
(‫ )۝‬//[‫} { ا ﻟ)ٯـﻠ(ﻮ ٮ و ا ﻻ ٮـ]ﺼ‬// [‫)ٯـ(ﻠ]ٮ‬//[‫ٮﺤٯﻮ ں ٮﻮ ]ﻣ[ﺎ ]ٮـ‬ 21
/ / (‫ ]ٮﻬﻢ[ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ﺣ} {]ﮟ[ )ﻣ(ﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻮ ا ا و ٮﺮ ٮﺪ ه)ﻢ‬428/ / 22
423
) The traces before rā’ match ‫ ٯٯـ‬better than ‫ٯٯٮـ‬.
424
) The last letter looks more like a final bā’/tā’/thā’ than a final fā’.
425
) It seems that the scribe forgot to write this rā’ initially, as it is written
slightly above the line, in the small space available between the last letter of
ghafūr and the ḥā’ of raḥīm.
426
) There are three small marks above the mīm, arranged vertically on top
of one another. They resemble the dashes used for distinguishing consonants or
separating verses.The lowest dash overlaps with mīm.Their function is not clear.
427
) This word appears to have been ‫ ٮﺼﯽ‬at first, as the horizontal traces of a
final yā’ are visible beneath the initial tooth and ṣād. However, the word was
modified to ‫ ٮـﺼـٮـﺎ‬by adding a tooth and alif at its end. These modifications
appear greenish, similar to those seen in other folios (e.g. folio 10 A, line 7).
428
) The traces match ‫ ﺣﺮ‬better than ‫ﻟٮﺤﺮ‬.
[‫)ٯـ(]ﺼﻟﻪ[ )و( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺮ ]ر[ ٯ ﻣﮟ ٮﺴﺎ ٮﻌٮﺮ ﺣﺴﺎ )ٮ( ]۝‬ 23

[‫]ﺪ[ )ٮـﮟ( آ]ٯﺮ[ و ا ا ﻋﻤﻠ)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ آﺴ]ﺮ[ )ٮ( ٮـٯـٮـﻌ]ﻪ ٮﺤﺴٮﻪ‬// [‫]ا‬ 24
429
[‫)ا ﻟﻄ(]ﻤﮟ[ ﻣﺎ )ﺣٮـ(ﺎ ا د ا ﺣﺎ ﻩ ﻟﻢ ٮﺤﺪ ﺳ)ٮﺎ( و ]و‬ 25
(‫)ﺪ( ا )ﻟﻠﻪ( ﻋ)ٮـﺪ( ﻩ ٯﻮ ٯـ)ٮـ(ﻪ ﺣ)ﺴٮـ(ﻪ )و( ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ]ﺳﺮ[ ٮـ)ﻊ‬//{} 26
[‫ ٯﯽ ٮـ)ﺤﺮ( ﻟ)ﺤ(ﻰ ٮـﻌ]ﺴﻪ‬430(‫ﺎ ٮ ۝ ا و آﻄ)ﻠ(]ﻤ[)ٮ‬//{}(‫}{)ا ﻟ‬ 27
{ } 432/ / [‫ ﻣﮟ ٯﻮ ٯﻪ ﻣ]ﻮ[ }{]ح‬431{ } 28
Folio 33 Recto (Q 34.13 – 34.23)
{ } (‫)ـﻞ( و ﺣٯـ)ﮟ‬/ /{ } ‫{ ﻣﺎ ٮﺴﺎ‬ } 1

{ } ‫ ا‬//[‫ )ﺳ(]ﮑ‬/ / ‫{ ]د[ ا‬ }‫ار‬ 433
(‫ )ر‬//{ } 2
{ }‫]ﻪ[ )ا( ﻟﻤ‬//(‫ ]ﻋ[)ﻠ‬/ /[‫ )ﯼ( ا ﻟ} {]ﮑ[ﻮ )ر( } { ٯـ} { ]ٯـﺼ‬//{ } 3
{ }/ /(‫)ﻞ ﻣ‬// ‫{ ]ﻋ[ﻠ)ﻰ( ]ﻣ[)ﻮ( ]ٮﻪ[ )ا ﻻ د ٮـ(]ﻪ[ )ا ﻻ ر( ]ص ٮـ[ﺎ‬ } 4
{ } ‫ ا ﻟ)ﺤ(ﮟ‬//[‫ﺎ ﺣ)ﺮ( ٮـ)ٮـ(ٮـ]ٮـ‬//[‫)ٯـ(]ﻠ‬ 434
‫ ]ا[ ٮـ]ﻌ[ﻤﻠﻮ ں ﻟ)ﻪ( ]ﺣﻮ[ ﻻ‬/ /{ } 5
‫ )ا( ﻟ)ﻌ(]ﺪ[ )ا( ]ٮ[ ا‬/ / ‫]ٮ[ )ﻣ(ﺎ )ﻟ(ٮـ)ٮـ(]ﻮ[ ا‬/ /[‫)ا( ]ﻟ‬ 435
/ /‫{)ﻮ آ(ﺎ ں )ٮـﻌ(ﻠ‬ } 6
‫ )ٯﯽ( ]ﻣﺴﮑ[ٮـ]ﻬﻢ[ ا )ٮـ(]ﻪ[ ﺣٮٮـ]ﮟ ﻋ[ﮟ‬/ /‫ ﻟ‬/ /(‫)ﮟ ﻟ(]ٯـ[ﺪ )آ‬/ /{ } 7
{ } ‫ ]و[ ا‬//(‫ ]و[ )ا ﺳﮑ‬//(‫ ]ر[ )ٮـﮑ‬/ / [‫]ﻣ[ﮟ )ر( ]ر‬ 436
‫ا‬/ / [‫} { ﺳ]ﻤﻞ‬ 8
{ } ‫ ا‬//[‫]ﺮ ﺻ‬// ‫ )و( ]ر[ )ٮ( ]ﻋٯﻮ[ )ر( ۝ ]و[ ﻠ]ﻤ[)ﺎ( ا‬/ / 9
{ }[‫)ٮﮟ( د ]و‬/ /[‫]ﻬﻢ ﺣ‬//[‫ ]ﻟ‬/ / [‫ ]و‬/ /[‫]ﻞ ا ﻟ‬/ / [‫]ﺎ‬/ / ‫ا‬ 10
{ }//(‫)ﻞ د ﻟ‬//‫ ]ٯـ[ﻠ‬// (‫ )و( ]ﺳ[ﺎ )ﯼ( ﻣ]ﮟ[ )ﺳﺪ‬/ / [‫ ]و‬/ /(‫ )ﺣ‬/ / ‫ا‬ 11
{ }/ / (‫)ﻟ‬/ / [‫)ٯـ(]ﻮ‬/ / (‫)ﺮ( ]ﯼ[ )ا ﻻ ا‬//(‫ )ٮـ‬/ / ‫ )آ(]ٯﺮ[ )و( ا‬/ / [‫} {]ﻬﻢ‬ 12
{ }[‫)ﺎ( ]ٯـ‬/ / [‫]ﺮ‬// [‫ ﻟ]ٮﯽ‬/ / (‫ )و‬/ /{ } 13
{ }/ /[‫ )ﺳ(]ٮـ[)ﺮ( ]و[ )ا( ٯـ]ٮـ‬/ /(‫ ]ا ﻟ[)ﺴ‬/ /{ } 14
429
) This letter might be connected to the previous letter, in which case they
would form the grapheme ‫ٯﻮ‬.
430
) It seems that the scribe initially forgot to write mīm but added it later.
431
) The scribe has left the beginning of the line empty to avoid interfering
with the previous line.
432
) The traces do not match min. The first letter is round, but does not seem
to be mīm (it might be wāw or fā’/qāf).The second letter might be hā’.
433
) If this rā’ belongs to qudūr, the following alif may be a scribal error.
434
) The text may have something like wa-hum kānū yaʽmalūna lahu ḥawlan
in addition to the standard reading.
435
) This word may be yuʽallimuhum, the subject of which could be Sulaymān.
436
) The text may have ʽan shimālin wa-yamīnin.
{ }/ / [‫ ]ﺳٯﺮ‬/ / [‫ ]ر ٮٮﺎ‬/ /{ } 15
{ } / (‫)ﻢ‬/ /{ } 16
{ }(‫ )ٯـ‬/ /{ } 17
{ }[‫)ﻄ(]ﮟ ا‬//[‫ ]ﺳ‬//[‫ ]ﻣ‬/ /{ } 18
{ } (‫)ﺎ‬/ /(‫ )ﻣ‬/ /[‫ ]ٯـ[ﻰ ]ﺳ‬/
437
/{ } 19
438
(‫ )ں‬// [‫ ٮـ)ﺪ ﻋﻮ( ں ]ﻣ[)ﮟ( ]د‬/ /{ }/ /{ } 20
{ } / / (‫ )ﻻ‬// (‫ ]ﻟﺴ[ﻤﻮ )ٮ‬/ /{ }/ /{ } 21
{ }/ /{ }/ /{ } 22
{ }[‫{)ﺣٮـ(]ﻰ‬ }/ /{ } 23
Folio 33 Verso (Q 34.23 – 34.33)
{ }/ /{ }/ /{ } 1
{ }/ /{ }/ /{ }/ /{ }//[‫]ﻠﻰ ا[ )ﻟ(]ﮑٮـ‬/ /{ } 2
{ } [‫]ﮑ[)ﻢ ﻻ( ]ﻣﺎ‬// (‫ )ا ٮـ(ﺎ ]و[ )ا‬// (‫ ]ٯـ[)ﻞ( ا ﻟ)ﻠﻪ‬/
439
/{ } 3
{ }[‫)ﮟ( ]۝[ ٯﻞ ]ﻻ[ )ٮـﺴ(ﻠ]ﻮ[ )ں( ]ﻋﻤ‬//[‫ )ٯﯽ ا ﻟ(]ﺼ[)ﻠ(ﻞ ﻣ]ٮـ‬/ / (‫ )ﯼ‬//{ } 4
{ } ‫ﺎ‬//‫ٮـ‬//‫ٮـﺤﻤ]ﻊ[ ٮـ‬ 440
(‫)ٮﺎ‬/ / ‫)ﺣ(ﺮ ﻣٮﺎ و ﻻ ]ٮـ[)ﺴ(ﻞ ﻋﻤﺎ ٮﺤﺮ ﻣ)ﻮ( ں ۝ ٯﻞ‬ 5
‫ ]ٮﯽ[ )ا( ﻟٮﯽ‬// (‫ح ا ﻟﻌﻠٮﻢ )ٯـ(ﻞ ا )ر‬ 442
‫و هﻮ( ا ﻟٯٮﺎ‬ 441
‫ﺎ ﻟ)ﺤٯ‬/ / 6
‫ )ا( ﻟ]ﻌ[ﺮ ]ٮﺮ[ ا‬//(‫ )ﻟﺤ(ٯٮﻢ )ٮـ(ﺎ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺳﺮ )آ(ﺎ ٯـ)ﻞ( ﮐﻼ )ه(]ﻮ[ ا ﻟ)ﻠ‬// 7
‫ ا و‬//‫)ﻠ(]ٮـ[ﮏ ا ﻻ ﻟﻠٮـ)ﺎ س آ(]ﺎ[ ٯﻪ )ٮـ(]ﺴ[ٮـ‬/ / ‫ ۝( و ﻣ)ﺎ( ا‬443‫)ﻢ‬/ /{ } 8
{ } ‫ﻣٮﯽ‬ 445
‫ﻞ‬/ / ‫۝‬ 444
‫ﺮ و ں‬/ /[‫ﺎ س ﻻ ]ٮـ‬//‫ ا و ﻟ]ﮑ[ﮟ ا )آ(]ٮـ[)ﺮ( ا ﻟ‬//{ } 9
437
) The text seems to have fī shakkin minhā instead of minhā fī shakkin.
438
) The text might have wa-lladhīna yadʽūna/tadʽūna instead of qul idʽū
lladhīna zaʽamtum.
439
) The text might be wa-innā wa-iyyākum la-immā ʽalā hudan.
440
) This word may be rabbunā.
441
) Considering the amount of space before this word, the phrase thumma
yaftaḥu baynanā may be missing.
442
) A small dash above the tooth means that perhaps tā’ is pointed.
443
) The traces before mīm match ‫ آ‬better than ‫آٮـ‬.
444
) This word may be yashkurūna or yatafakkarūna.
445
) The first letter in the preceding illegible part may be wāw or fā’/qāf. This
word may be wa-qīla or fa-qīla.
{ }(‫ )ٮـ‬446‫)ﻤ(ﺪ‬/ / (‫ )ٯﻞ‬/ /‫)ﺪ( ٯٮـ‬// [‫} { ]ا[ )ﻟ(]ﻮ[ )ﻋﺪ( ا ں )آ(]ٮٮﻢ‬ 10
{ } [‫]ٯﺪ[ ﻣ)ﻮ( ں ۝ ]و‬/ / [‫ ]و ﻻ‬/ / (‫]ﻪ ﺳ[)ﺎ‬/ /{ } 11
{ } ‫ ﯼ ]ٮـ[ٮﮟ‬//[‫]ﻬ[)ﺪ ا ا( ﻟٯـ]ﺮ[ )ں( و ﻻ )ٮـ(]ﺎ ﻟ‬/ /{ } 12
{ } 448
[‫ﺼﻬ]ﻢ‬/ /(‫ﻠ)ٯـ‬// ‫ ں‬//[‫ ]ٯـ‬/ /[‫]ﻣ‬ 447
(‫)ﮟ‬/ /(‫{ )ﻟ‬ } 13
{ }//‫ﻟﻠ‬ 449
‫]ﻮ[ ا‬//‫ﺼ‬//(‫]ﻮ[ ل )ا( ﻟ)ﺪ( ٮﮟ ا )ﺳٮـ‬//‫{ ٮـ‬ } 14
{ }[‫ ]و[ )ٯـ(]ﻞ‬/ / (‫ﺎ ]ﻣ[)ﻮ( ]ﻣٮٮـ[)ﮟ‬/ /‫ )ﻻ ا( ]ٮٮﻢ[ ﻟ‬//(‫ ]و[ ا )ﻟ‬/ /{ } 15
{ }/ / 450
(‫ )ا‬/ / (‫)ﻌ(]ٯﻮ[ ا )ا‬/ /‫ﮟ ا )ﺳ(ٮـ‬// ‫)ﺮ( ]و[ ا ﻟﻠﺪ‬//(‫} { )آ‬ 16
{ }/ / (‫)ﻞ‬// [‫} { )ﻟﻬﺪ( ﯼ ﻟ)ﻤ(ﺎ )ﺣ(ﺎ ]ﮐﻢ‬ 17
{ }/ /{}/ / (‫ )ا‬/ / [‫]ٯـ[)ﻮ( ا ﻟﻠ]ﺪ‬//(‫)ﺼ‬/ / ‫ )ٮـ(ﮟ ا‬//(‫)ﻟ‬ 18
{ }/ /{ }/ / [‫)ﻞ و( ا ﻟٮـ)ﻬﺮ( ا ]د‬/ / 19
{ }/ /{ }/ / ‫)ﻌ(ﻞ ﻟ)ﻪ( ا‬/ /{} 20
{ }/ /{ }/ /(‫}{ )ﻟ‬ 21
Folio 34 Recto (Q 34.40 – 34.47)
{ }// 451‫ﻻ‬ 1
{ }/ / [‫ٮـ)ﻮ( ]ا‬ 2
{ }[‫]ﻌ‬// ‫ٮﻤﻠﮏ‬ 3
{ }// [‫ﺪ )ٮ( ]ا‬// 4
{ }‫ٮـ‬// [‫ ]ا‬/ /[‫]ﻋﻠ‬ 5
{ }/ / 6
{ }/ / 7
{ } ‫)ﮟ( و‬/ / 8
446
) There is a small chance that the letter preceding dāl is ʽayn. The illegible
part preceding mīm may contain one or two letters. There are also traces there
above the line that resemble lām. Perhaps the scribe added lakum to the text later.
447
) The traces match ‫ ﻟﻄﻠﻤٮﮟ‬better than ‫ﻟﻄﻠﻤﻮ ں‬.
448
) The text may have yulqī baʽḍuhum.
449
) The letter before ḍād may be ʽayn. It seems that the scribe made a mis-
take and wrote ʽayn before ḍād instead of after it.
450
) The presence of this alif suggests that the text is different from the
standard reading.
451
) This grapheme may belong to a-hā’ulā’i.
{ } / /453‫ ﻣ‬452‫ ٮﮟ ﮐٯﺮ و ا‬/ / { } 9

{ }/ /‫ ﻣ‬/ /(‫)ﮟ ﻣﮟ( ٯـ)ٮـ(ﻠ)ﻬ‬/ / ‫ ا‬//{ } 10
{ } [‫ ﻟ]ﻠ‬/ /(‫ ٮـ)ﻮ( ا ر ﺳﻠ)ﻰ( ٯﺎ ]ﻣ[)ﻠ‬//‫{ آ‬
454
} 11
{ } ‫ﺎ‬/ / ‫ )آ(]ﺎ[ )ں( ]ٮـﮑ[)ٮـ(]ﺮ ۝[ )ٯـ(ﻞ ا‬//{
455
} 12
{ }‫{]ﻣ[)ﻮ( ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( )ﻣ(ٮٮﺎ )و( ٯﺮ دﯼ ٮﻢ‬ } 13
{ }(‫ ٮﺮ ٮٮـ)ﮟ‬/ / (‫ ا )ﻻ‬/ / (‫ ا )ں‬/ /{ } 14
{ }//‫ )ﻣ(]ﺎ[ ﺳﺎ ﻟ‬/ / 456
{ } 15
Folio 34 Verso (Q 13.1 – 13.5)
~~{ } 1
‫{ ا )ﻟﮑ(ٮٮ‬ } 2
‫)ﮟ( ا ﮐٮﺮ‬//{ } 3
(‫)ﻤﻮ‬/ /‫{]ﻊ[ )ا( ﻟ‬ } 4
[‫{ ا ﻟ)ٯـ(]ﻤﺮ‬ } 5
[‫]ﻢ‬//(‫{]ٮ[ ﻟ)ﻌﻠ‬ } 6
‫{ ا ﻻ ]ر[ ص‬ } 7
[‫{ـﻞ ٯـ]ٮـ[)ﻬ(ﺎ ﻣ]ﮟ‬ } 8
457
//[‫{ ﮐﻞ رو ﺣٮﮟ ا ]ٮٮٮـ‬ } 9
{ } ‫{)ں( ٯﯽ د ﻟﮏ ﻻ )ٮـ(ٮ‬ } 10
{ }[‫{ ا ﻻ )ر( ]ص[ )ٯـ(]ﻄ[)ﻊ ﻣٮـ(ﺤﻮ ر ]ٮ‬ } 11
{ } ‫)و ا( ﻟٮﺤﻞ ﺻٮﻮ ]ٮـ[ﺎ و ﻋٮﺮ‬ 458
‫{ـٮ‬ } 12
452
) Considering the traces on the neighbouring lines, this instance of kafarū
does not seem to belong to verse 43. Maybe verse 44 features alladhīna kafarū.
453
) It is not clear if this mīm is initial, medial, final, or isolated.
454
) The text may have fa-amlaytu li-lladhīna kadhdhabū/kafarū in addition
to the standard reading.
455
) The traces before alif match ‫ ﻣٮـ‬better than ‫ٮـﻤ‬.
456
) Nothing is written before this point, since writing here would have inter-
fered with the previous line.
457
) Considering the legible words, the text might have wa-jaʽala fīhā min
kulli l-thamarāti wa-anbata/wa-jaʽala fīhā min kulli zawjayni thnayni instead
of the standard text between al-nahār and yughshī.
458
) The phrase wa-jannātun min aʽnābin might follow wa-zarʽun rather than
precede it.
{ }(‫{ ﺣﺪ و )ٮٯـﺼ(ﻞ )ٮـﻌ(ﺼ)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ ﻋ)ﻠ‬ } 13

{ }‫ ﻟﮏ ﻻ ٮٮ ﻟٯـ)ﻮ( م‬// (‫{]ٯـ[)ﻰ‬ } 14
{ } 459
‫ﺎ‬//‫ ]ﻣ[ٮـ‬/ / [‫{]ٮ[ ٯﻮ ]ﻟﻬﻢ ا‬ } 15
Folio 35 Recto (Q 13.6 – 13.14)
{ }(‫)و‬ 1
{ }‫ﻟﻌ‬ 2
{ } ‫وا‬
460
3
{ } (‫)ٮـﻌ(]ٮﺺ[ )ا ﻻ‬ 4
{ }(‫)ﻠﻢ ا‬// (‫ٮـ]ﺪ[ } { ٮـ)ﻤ(ٯﺪ )ر ۝‬// 5
{ }‫ﻟ]ﮑٮـ[ٮﺮ )ا( ﻟ)ﻤ(ٮـﻌ)ﻞ( ۝ ﺳ)ﻮ( ا‬ 6
{ }/ /‫ )ا( ه‬// (‫ ]ﺣ[)ﻬﺮ‬//{ } 7
{ }/ / 461
[‫]ٮ‬/ /[‫ )ﻣ(]ﻌ‬/ /{ } 8
{ }‫)ﻣ(ﮟ ا )ﻣ(ﺮ ا‬ 462
‫ )ٯـ(]ٮﻮ[ ٮﻪ‬//{}// ‫ٮـ)ﺪ ٮـ(ﻪ‬ 9
{ } (‫]ٮﺮ[ و )ا‬/ / (‫ ]م[ )ﺣ(]ٮـ[)ﺎ‬//‫ﻣﺎ )ٮـ(ٯـ‬ 10
{ } ‫ر ]ا[ د )ا( ]ﻟ[ﻠﻪ ٮٯﻮ م‬
463
11
{ } (‫ﻣ)ﮟ( و ا ل ۝ )ه(]ﻮ[ ا ﻟ)ﺪ‬ 12
{ }[‫ﻃﻤﻌﺎ و )ٮٮـﺴ(ﻰ ا ﻟﺴ]ﺤ‬ 13
{ }[‫ٮـﺤ)ﻤﺪ( ﻩ و ا ﻟ)ﻤ(ﻠ)ٮـ(]ﮑ‬ 14
{ } ‫} {)ٯـ(} {)ٮ( ٮﻪ‬ 15
459
) This word may be mitnā.
460
) Assuming that the visible letters on line 2 belong to al-ʽiqāb (verse 6),
the letters on the present line cannot belong to kafarū, which is only two words
away, unless kafarū appears in a different place than it does in the standard text.
Also, lines 2 and 3 have less room than expected for the text between al-ʽiqāb and
taghīḍ (verse 8).
461
) Considering the traces on the next line, the text following muʽaqqibāt
may be min khalfihi wa-min bayni yadayhi or even a longer phrase such as min
khalfihi wa-raqībun min bayni yadayhi, which is reported for Ibn ʽAbbās (al-
Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 4:394).
462
) The text may have yarqubūnahu instead of yaḥfaẓūnahu.
463
) The following missing part is rather small for the standard text between
bi-qawmin and min wālin.
{ }(‫{ )و ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ } 16
{ } [‫{ )ا ﻟ(]ﺪ‬ } 17
Folio 35 Verso (Q 13.16 – 13.21)
/ /{ } 1
(‫} {]ﺳ[ﺎ )ﯼ‬// [‫{]ٯ‬ } 2
/ /{ } ‫{]ٮﺮ[ )ل( ]ﻣ[ﮟ ا‬ } 3
(‫{ ]ر ه[ﺎ ]ٯـ[)ﺎ( ]ﺣٮـﻤ[)ﻞ( ا ﻟ]ﺴٮـ[)ﻞ‬ } 4
/ / ‫)ﺎ( ]ﺣ[ﻠ)ٮـ(ﻪ‬//[‫]ٮـ‬// (‫]ﺎ ر[ )ا‬//[‫{]ﻠٮﻪ[ )ٯـ(ﻰ ]ا ﻟ‬ } 5
{ } (‫{ﺻﺮ ٮ ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ﻟ}{)ٯ( } { )ا( ﻟٮـ]ﻄ[)ﻞ‬ } 6
‫ )ا( ﻟٮـ]ﺎ[ س‬//(‫)ٯـ‬/ / (‫{ و ا )ﻣﺎ‬ } 7
‫{ ٮـ)ﺼ(ﺮ ٮ ا ]ﻟﻠ[ﻪ )ا ﻻ( ﻣ]ٮـ[ﻞ‬ } 8
(‫ )ا( ﻟ]ﺤ[)ﺴٮﯽ و( ا ﻟﺪ )ٮﮟ‬/ /{ } 9
‫]ﺎ[ )ٯﯽ ا( ﻻ ر ص‬//{ } 10
‫و ا و ﻟ)ٮﮏ( ﻟ]ﻬ[ﻢ‬ 464
‫{ ﺣﻮ ﻩ‬ } 11
(‫]ﻢ و[ )ٮٮـ(]ﺲ[ )ا( ﻟﻤ]ﻬﺪ[ )۝‬//{ } 12
‫{ ر ٮـ]ﮏ[ ا )ﻟ(ﺤٯ ﮐﻤﮟ هﻮ‬ } 13
{ }/ /{ }‫{ ﻟﺪ ٮـ)ﮟ( ٮـ‬ } 14
{ }// ‫{ ﻟﺪ‬ } 15
{ }[‫)ﻬ(]ﻢ‬/ /{ } 16
Folio 36 Recto (Q 13.25 – 13.31)
{ } ‫ ا‬465//(‫)ﻠ‬//(‫{ )ﻠ‬ } 1
{ }/ / { } (‫)و‬/ / [‫{ )ا( ]ں‬ } 2
{ }(‫)ٮـ(]ﺎ[ )ﻟ‬ 466
//{ } //(‫{ )و ٯـ‬ } 3
{ } [‫{)ﺎ( ]ٯﯽ[ )ا( ]ﻻ[ ﺣﺮ ]ﻩ‬ } 4
464
) The text is uncertain. It might have yastakhrijūhu or li-yastakhrijūhu as
a plus. Alternatively, it may have la-yastakhrijūhu instead of la-ftadaw bihi.
465
) The first and second lām might be connected, in which case this word
may be allāh.
466
) This word may be fariḥū (verse 26).
{ } ‫)ﮟ ر( ٮـ]ﻪ[ ٯﻞ‬/ / { } 5

{ }/ / ‫ ا‬/ / ‫ } { ا ٮﺎ‬/ / ‫)ﮟ( ٮـ]ﺴ[)ﺎ( و‬// (‫} { ٮـ]ﺼ[)ﻞ‬ 6
(‫ ا )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ ا )ﻻ( ٮـ)ﺪ ﮐﺮ‬/ /{ }/ / [‫ )ٯـﻠ(]ﻮ‬/ /[‫ ا ]و[ )ٮـ(]ﻄﻤ‬/ / { } 7
//[‫)ﻮ( ا ]و ﻋﻤﻠ‬//[‫ ]ا ﻣ‬/ / [‫}{]ﺪ‬/ / ‫ﻠ]ﻮ ٮ[ و‬/ / (‫)ﮟ ا‬//(‫)ا( ﻟ]ﻠﻪ ٮـﻄ[)ﻤ‬ 8
/ /(‫ )آ‬/ /{}/ /{ }/ /(‫ا ]ﻟ[ﺼ)ﻠﺤ(ٮ ]ﻃ[)ﻮ( ٮـ)ﻰ ﻟ‬ 9
// 467
(‫)ﻠ(]ﻬ[)ﺎ‬//(‫ )ٯـ‬/ /{ }[‫ )ٯﯽ( ا ]ﻣﻪ ٯـ‬//{}//‫ﺳ‬ 10
{ }/ /{ }/ /(‫ )ا( ]ﻋ[)ﻠ‬//‫} { )ﻟٮٮـ(ﻠ‬// 11
{ }/ /{ }[‫ ]ٯﻞ‬/ / 12
{ } ‫ ٯـ]ﺮ[ ٮﺎ )ﺳ(ٮـ]ﺮ[ ٮ ]ٮـ[ﻪ‬// [‫{ ]ا‬ }/ / ‫ﮐﻠٮ‬ 13
{ }/ /‫ ا ﻟ‬/ /(‫)ﻠ‬/ / { }/ /‫ا‬ 14
{ }/ / ‫ ا‬/ /{ }/ / (‫]ﻪ[ )ا‬//(‫)ﻟ‬ 15
{ }[‫ ]ﻻ‬/ /{ }/ / (‫ﻟ)ﻮ‬ 16
{ }/ / [‫{ ]ا‬ } //‫ﻤ‬/ /{ }
468
17
Folio 36 Verso (Q 13.33 – 13.40)
{ } [‫)ﮟ( ]ﻟﻠﺪ‬//{ } 1
{ }[‫{ )ﻟﻠ(ﻪ ]ٯـ‬ }//[‫]ﮟ‬//{ } 2
{ } (‫]۝[ )ﻟ(} {)ﺪ( ]ٮ[ )ٯﯽ‬ 469
(‫{)د‬ } 3
{ }‫ ﻟ‬//[‫ ]ﻣ‬//{ }// ‫{]ﺮ[ ﻩ ا‬ } 4
{ }// [‫{ ا ﻟٮﯽ و ]ﻋﺪ ا‬ } 5
{ }// [‫{]ﻰ‬ }// 470
(‫)م‬// (‫ )ا‬// { } / / [‫{ا )آ(ﻠ)ﻬ(]ﺎ‬ } 6
467
) The missing and illegible areas before this word are much larger than is
needed for qad khalat min.
468
) Assuming that the grapheme near the end of the previous line is lā, the
visible mīm here might belong to tuṣībuhum or bi-mā. However, the space be-
tween the putative lā and the present point is too small for the standard text
between lā and tuṣībuhum. Perhaps the text has ẓalamū (which features mīm)
instead of kafarū, a reading reported for Ibn Masʽūd and Mujāhid (al-Khaṭīb,
Muʽjam, 4:427).
469
) Assuming that the putative fā’ at the end of line 2 belongs to fa-mā, the
missing parts at the end of line 2 and beginning of line 3 have much more space
than is needed for the remainder of verse 33.
470
) The text might have ukuluhā wa-ẓilluhā dā’imun.
{ } ‫ ۝ )و ا( ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ا‬// ‫} {]ﮟ[ ا ﻟٮﺎ‬//[‫ و ﻋٯٮﯽ )ا ﻟ(]ﮑ‬// [‫]ﻮ‬/ /{ } 7

{ }(‫)ﮏ( ﻣﮟ )ر( ٮـ)ﮏ‬//‫ ا ٮﺮ ل ا ﻟ‬//(‫} { )ٮـﻤ‬// [‫)ا( ﻟ]ﮑٮٮ[ )ٮـ(ٯـ]ﺮ‬ 471
// 8
‫]ﺼﻪ[ آ)ﻞ ٮـ(ﺪ ﻋﻮ ا ا‬/ /(‫)ﮑ‬//(‫} { )ٮـ‬/ / (‫ )ٮ‬//[‫)ﻣﮟ ا ﻻ( ]ﺣ‬ 9
‫]ٯـ[)ﻞ( ا ٮـ)ﻤ(ﺎ ا ﻣﺮ )ٮ( ا ں‬ //(‫ }{ )ا ه‬/
472
/ (‫ )ﺣ(]ٮٮـ[)ﻪ‬/ / 10
‫ا ]د[ )ﻋﻮ( ا ]و[ ا ﻟٮﻪ‬ 473
‫ﻪ‬/ /{ }/ / [‫]ﻋٮﺪ[ ا )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ‬ 11
‫ ﻋﺮ ٮٮﺎ و ﻟٮـ)ﮟ( }{ا‬//{ }/ / ‫ ]ٮ[۝‬/ / 12
{ }‫{]ﮎ[ ﻣ]ﮟ[ )ا( ﻟ]ﻌ[ﻠ‬ }/ / {}‫} { ا‬ 13
/ /{ }/ /{} ‫ا‬//{ } 14
‫ ﻣﺎ ﮐﺎ ں‬/ / { }/ /{ } 15
(‫)ﻞ‬//‫{ ﻟﻠﻪ ﻟ‬ }/ /(‫} { )ﺣ‬ 16
//‫{ و ﻋٮـ‬ } / / [‫]ﻞ ا‬/ /{ } 17
‫ )ﻣ(ﺎ‬/ /{ }/ /{ } 18
{ }[‫ا ]ٮ‬/ /{ }/ /{ } 19
Folio 16 Verso (Q 28.19 – 28.24)
{ }(‫{ﮐﻮ )ں‬ } 1
{ }‫{ـﺪ ٮٮﻪ ٮـ)ﺴ(ﻌﻰ ٯﻞ‬ } 2
‫ﻠﻮ ﮎ ٯﺎ )ﺣ(ﺮ ح‬//{ } 3
(‫ ]ﻣ[)ٮـ(ﻬﺎ ﺣٮٯﺎ ٮٮـ)ﺮ‬//{ } 4
/ / ‫{)ا( ﻟﺤﻄٮﮟ )۝( و ﻟ]ﻤ[ﺎ‬ } 5
‫{ )ٮـﻬ(]ﺪ[ ٮٮﯽ )ﺳ(ﻮ ا ا‬ } 6
[‫{ ﺣﺪ ﻋﻠٮـ)ﻪ( ا ﻣ]ﻪ‬ } 7
{ }[‫{)ﻬﻢ( ا ﻣ)ﺮ ا( ٮـ]ٮﮟ‬ } 8
{ }// 474
‫{ا ٮﮟ ٯـﻠــ)ٮـ(ﺎ‬ } 9
471
) The traces here might belong to an alif, in which case the text may have
ūtū instead of ātaynāhum.
472
) The additional text may begin with kullun yadʽū … ilā janbihi/jānibihi.
473
) The traces before hā’ do not quite match ‫ا ﻟٮـ‬. Specifically, the letter be-
fore hā’ may be lām instead of bā’.
474
) The horizontal line between lām and the tooth is darker than the other let-
ters.
‫{ﺎ ﺳٮـ)ﺢ( ]آ[} {‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪10‬‬

‫{ﻞ و )ٯﻞ( } {‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫)‪Folio 16 Recto (Q 28.30 – 28.35‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {‪]//‬ﺎ ا[ ﻟﻠﻪ ر ‪}//‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{‬ ‫هﺎ ٮـ]ﻬ[)ٮـ(ﺮ ﮐﺎ }‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٮـ)ﻤﻮ( ﺳﯽ ا )ٯٮـ(ﻞ )و( }‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٮـ)ﺪ( ﮎ ]ٯـ[ﻰ )ٯـﻤ(ٮـ)ﺼ( }‬
‫‪475‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ﺻ(ﻤﻢ ا ﻟٮﮏ ﺣٮـﺤ}‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ر ٮﮏ ا ﻟﯽ )ٯـ(ﺮ ]ﻋ[}‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٯـ} {)ٯـ(ٮﮟ ۝ )ٯﻞ( ر ٮ}‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {)و( ا ﺣﯽ هﺮ )و( ]ں[}‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {]ﺼ[ﺪ ٯٮﯽ ا )ٮﯽ(}‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} { )ﺣ(‪)//‬ﮏ و ٮـﺤ(}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {)ٮـ(ٮٮـ)ٮـ(ﺎ ا ٮٮـ}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫)‪Folio 28 Recto (Q 37.15 – 37.33‬‬
‫} {)و( ٯﻠﻮ ا هﺪ ا } {‪//‬ٮٮﮟ ۝ )ا( د ا ‪/ /‬ﺎ ‪]/ /‬ٮﺎ[ ٮﺮ ٮـ)ﺎ(} {‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫}{ )ﻋ(]ﻄ[)ﻤﺎ( ا ‪//‬ﺎ )ﻟ(‪)/ /‬ﻮ( ں ۝ ا و ‪] / /‬و[ ‪] / /‬و[ ﻟﻮ ں ]۝[‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{ ﺣ)ﺮ( ﻩ )و(‬ ‫} { ٯﻞ ٮﻌﻢ و ا ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻢ ]د[ ﺣﺮ و ں )۝( ٯﺎ )ٮـ(}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪] / /{ }/‬ٮﻮ[ ٮﻠٮﺎ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪476‬‬
‫} { ﺣﺪ ﻩ ٯﺎ د ا ه]ﻢ[ ﻣﺤ)ﺼ(]ﺮ[‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ه‪) //‬ا ٮـ(ﻮ )م( ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ۝ )ه(‪) //‬ا ٮﻮ( ‪]{ }/ /‬ﺼﻞ[ ‪) / /‬ﻟ(‪) //‬ﯼ(‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{ )ﻃ(‪]//‬ﻤ[)ﻮ ا( ‪//‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪) /‬ٮـ(]ﻮ[ ں )۝( ا ٮـ)ﻌٮـ(ﻮ )ا(‬
‫‪477‬‬
‫آ]ٮـ[‪)//‬ﻢ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{ )ٯﺎ( ]ه[‪/ /‬‬ ‫ﻣﮟ د[}‬ ‫‪478‬‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ ا )ٮـ(]ﻌ[)ٮﺪ( و ]ں‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫{‪/‬‬ ‫ه)ﻢ( ا ﻟﯽ ﺻﺮ ٮﻂ ا )ﻟﺤ(ﺤٮﻢ ‪}//‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪475‬‬
‫‪) This word may be qamīṣika.‬‬
‫‪476‬‬
‫‪) The text may have muḥḍarūn instead of yanẓurūn.‬‬
‫‪477‬‬
‫‪) This word may be ibʽathū.‬‬
‫‪478‬‬
‫‪) The space between the putative nūn and mīm is rather small for the two-‬‬
‫‪column verse separator symbols used in this folio.‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫{‪/‬‬ ‫ﻟ)ﻮ ں ۝( ﻣﻠﮑﻢ ﻻ ٮٮٮﺼﺮ )و( ‪}479/ /‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬

‫{‬ ‫)ﻣ(‪]/ /‬ٮـﺴ[ﻠ)ﻤﻮ( ں )۝( ٯـ)ﺎ ٯـ(ٮـ]ﻞ[ ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ٯـ(ﺎ }{ﻮ ا ا )ٮﮑﻢ( ]آ[‪]//‬ٮﻢ[ }‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ٮﻞ ﻟﻢ ٮـﮑ)ﻮ ٮـ(ﻮ ا ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ﻣﮟ( ﺳﻠﻄ)ﮟ( ٮﻞ ]آ[ٮـ]ٮـ[}‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ل ‪)/ /‬ٮـ(ﺎ ا ٮـ)ﺎ( ‪}//‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ﻋﻮ( ‪]//‬ﮟ ۝[ )ٯﺎ( ]ٮـ[‪}//‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫)‪Folio 28 Verso (Q 37.43 – 37.68‬‬
‫} { ﺣٮٮ )ا( ]ﻟ[)ٮـﻌ(‪ / /‬۝ ﻋﻠ]ﻰ[ ﺳﺮ ر ﻣٮـ]ٯـ[ٮـ)ﻠ(} {]۝[ ٮﻄﺎ ڡ ﻋﻠٮـﻬ)ﻢ(‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫]ٮـ[)ﮑ(ﺎ س ﻣ]ﮟ ﻣ[)ﻌ(]ٮـ[‪]/ /‬ٮـ[)ﺼﺎ( ﻟﺪ ﻩ ﻟﻠ]ﺴ[‪] //‬ٮٮـ[ﮟ )۝( ﻻ )ٯـ(]ٮـ[ﻬﺎ ﻋﻮ }{‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ل و ]ﻻ[ )ه(} {‪]/ /‬ﺎ[ ٮٮـ)ﺮ( ٯـ]ﻮ[ )ں( ﻋ)ٮـ(]ﺪ[ ه]ﻢ[ )ٯـﺼ(ﺮ ٮ ا ﻟﻄ]ﺮ[} {‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{‪)//‬ﺺ ﻣﮑ(ٮـ)ﻮ ں( ۝ )ٯﺎ( ٯٮﻞ )ٮـ(ﻌﺼ)ﻬ(ﻢ )ﻋ(ﻠﺎ } {‬ ‫‪ / /‬ﻋ]ٮـ[)ﮟ(۝ آ]ﺎ[ ٮـ}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{ ٮـ)ﻞ ﻣٮـ(ﻬﻢ ا ٮﯽ ﮐﺎ ں ﻟﯽ ٯﺮ ٮـ)ﮟ ۝( ٮٯﻮ‬ ‫)ٮـ(]ﻌ[)ﺺ ٮـ(ٮـﺴﻠ)ﻮ ں(}‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{ ٯـ]ٮـ[ﮟ )۝( ا د ا )ﻣ(ٮـ]ٮـ[ﺎ و ]آ[)ٮـ(ﺎ ٮـ)ﺮ( ٮﺎ و‬ ‫ل ا ٮﮏ ﻟﻤ]ﮟ[}‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{ ‪ / /‬ٯـﻬ)ﻞ( ا ]ٮـ[)ٮﻢ( ﻣﻄﻠ)ﻌ(]ﻮ[ ں )۝( ٯﺎ ﻃﻠﻊ‬ ‫)ﻋ(ﻄ‪//‬ﺎ ا )ٮـ(ﺎ }‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫{ )۝( ٯﻞ ٮﺎ ﻟﻠﻪ ا ں )آ(]ﺪ ٮ[ ﻟ)ٮـﻌ(ﻮ ٮﮟ‬ ‫)ٯﺮ( ا ‪ //‬ٯﯽ }‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{]آ[ٮٮ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻤﺤ)ﺼ(ﺮ ٮـ)ﮟ( ۝ و ﻣ)ﺎ( ٮﺤﮟ‬ ‫]۝ و[ )ﻟ(]ﻮ[ )ﻻ(}‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{ ﻟ)ﻰ( و ﻣﺎ )ٮـﺤ(ﮟ ٮـﻤ)ﻌ(ﺪ )ٮٮﮟ ۝( ا ں‬ ‫‪)/ /‬ٮٮـ(]ﮟ[ ‪) //‬ا(}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{ ]۝[ ﻟ)ﻤ(]ٮـ[ﻞ ه)ﺪ( ا ٯـﻠ]ٮـ[)ﻌ(]ﻤ[ﻞ ا‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{ ]ا[ )م( ]ﺳﺤ[‪ //‬ﻩ ا ﻟﺮ} {]ٯـ[ﻮ م‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{‪)/ /‬ﺎ ﺳﺤﺮ( ‪] //‬ٮـﺤ[‪] //‬ح[ ٯﯽ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{ ]س[ ا ﻟ‪)/ /‬ﻄ(‪//‬ﮟ ]۝[ ٯﺎ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫{ ا )ﻟ(‪//‬ﻄﻮ ں )۝( ‪//‬ﻢ ا‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫{ ا ]ں[ ﻣﺮ ﺣﻌﻬ)ﻢ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫)‪Folio 29 Recto (Q 37.82 – 37.103‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {)ا( ﻻ ﺣﺮ ٮﮟ ۝ و ا ں ﻣﮟ )ﺳ(ٮـﻌ‪ / /‬ﻻ )ٮﺮ( ]ه[}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{‬ ‫} { ٮﻪ ٮٯﻠٮ ﺳﻠٮﻢ ۝ ا )د( ٯﻞ )ﻻ( ‪ / /‬و ]ٯﻮ[ }‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪479‬‬
‫‪) This word may be tanāṣarūn (with the alif spelled) or tatanāṣarūn,‬‬
‫‪which is reported for Ibn Masʽūd (al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 8:20).‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {ٮـ)ﻌ(ٮﺪ و ں ۝ ا )ٮـ(ٯﮑﺎ د و )ں( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ﻟﻬ]ﻪ[ }‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫{‬ ‫} { )ﻣ(ﺎ ]ﻃ[‪)//‬ﮑﻢ ٮﺮ ٮ( ا ]ﻟﻌ[ﻠ)ﻤ(ٮـ)ﮟ( ۝ ٯـ)ٮـﻄ(ﺮ ٮـ]ﻄ[‪} //‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {‪) //‬ٯﻞ( ا )ٮﯽ ﺳ(ٯٮـ]ﻢ[} { ٯـ]ٮـ[ﻮ ﻟ]ﻮ[ ا ]ﻋ[ٮـ]ﻪ[ ‪}//‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{‬ ‫} {]ا[ ﻟﯽ ا ﻟ)ﻬ(ٮـ)ﻬ(‪] //‬ٯـ[‪]{ }/ /‬ا[ ﻻ ]ٮـ[ﺎ ]آ[ﻠ]ﻮ[ }‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ں( ‪] / /‬ٯﺮ[ ‪/ /‬ﻠٮﻬﻢ )ﺻ(‪]/ /‬ﺎ[ ٮﺎ ﻟ]ٮـ[‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ٮﺮ ٯـ(ﻮ ‪] / /‬۝[ ٯﻞ ا )ٮـ(ﻌ)ٮـ(]ﺪ[ )و ں( ﻣﺎ ٮـ]ٮـﺤ[‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{‪) //‬ں ۝ ٯـ(ﺎ )ﻟ(]ﻮ[ ا )ا( ‪) / /‬ا( ‪}//‬‬ ‫و ﻣ}‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{ )ٯـ(]ﺎ[ )ر( د و )ا( ‪]//‬ﻪ[ ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫ٯﯽ ا }‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ﺳ(ٯـﻠٮـ)ﮟ ۝(} {]ﻞ[ ا ٮﯽ د ه‪) / /‬ا( ‪}//‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻟﯽ ﻣﮟ )ا( } {)ﺼ(ﻠﺤٮﮟ )۝( )ٯٮـ(‪]//‬ﺮ[ ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{‬ ‫ﻣﻌ‪ //‬ا )ﻟ(ﺴ]ﻌﻰ[ ٯﻞ ٮٮٮﯽ )ا( ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫{‬ ‫د )ٮـ(ﺤﮏ ‪)//‬ﺎ( ٮـ)ﻄﺮ ﻣ(ﺎ ‪}//‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫{‬ ‫)ﺳ(ٮﺤﺪ ٮﯽ ا )ں ﺳ(ﺎ }‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪}/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫)‪Folio 29 Verso (Q 37.118 – 37.144‬‬
‫‪]/‬ﻢ[ ۝ و ٮﺮ ﮐٮﺎ } {‬ ‫{ ا ﻟ)ﺼ(ﺮ ‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{‪) //‬ﺣ(ﺮ ‪)//‬ﮟ( ‪] //‬ﺳ[ﻠ]ﻢ[ )ﻋ(ﻠﻰ )ﻣﻮ( ]ﺳ[ﻰ و هﺮ )و( ں ۝ ﮐﺪ } {‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{‪//‬ﺴ)ٮـ(ٮـ)ﮟ( ۝ ا ٮﻬﻢ ﻣ)ﮟ( ﻋٮـ]ﺪ[ ٮﺎ )ا ﻟﻤ(]ﻮ ﻣ[‪]//‬ٮـ[} {‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{ ﻣ)ﮟ( ا ﻟﻤﺮ ﺳﻠٮﮟ ۝ ا د )ٯﻞ( ﻟ)ٯـ(]ﻮ[ ‪) / /‬ا( } {‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{ ں )ٮـ(]ﻌ[ﻠﺎ و ٮﺪ )ر و( } { ا ﺣﺴ)ﮟ( ا ﻟﺤ)ﻠ(]ٯٮـ[‪{ }/ /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{ ا ٮﺎ )ٮـ(]ﮑ[)ﻢ( ا )ﻻ(} {]ﻟ[‪//‬ﮟ ]۝[ ٯـ)ﮑ(ﺪ ]ٮـ[)ﻮ( ‪) //‬ٯـ(} {‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{‪] / /‬ں ۝[ )ا ﻻ( } {]ٮـ[)ﺪ( ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ]ا ﻟ[‪]//‬ﺤ[ﻠ)ﺼ(ٮـ]ﮟ[ ۝ و‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪480‬‬
‫{ )ﻻ( ﺣﺮ ‪ / /‬۝ )ﺳ(ﻠ)ﻢ( ﻋﻠ)ﻰ( ا ]ﻟ[)ٮـ(]ﺴٮـ[‪]{}//{}//{}//‬ﺪ[ ﻟﮏ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫{ ﮐﺎ ں )ﻣ(ﮟ ﻋٮﺪ ٮـ)ﺎ( ]ا ﻟ[‪] / /‬ﻣ[} {)ﮟ( ]۝[ و‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫{ )و( ا‬ ‫{ )ا( ﻟ]ﻤﺮ[ ﺳ)ﻠٮـ(]ﮟ[ ۝ ]ا[ )د( }‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫{ )ا( ‪) / /‬ﻟ(]ﻌٮـ[‪ //‬ٮﮟ ۝ )ٮـ(ﻢ} { ﻣﺮ ٮﺎ ا‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫{ ‪] / /‬ﻋ[)ﻠٮـ(ﻬ)ﺎ( ]ﻣﺼ[} {]ٮﮟ ۝[ و ٮﺎ ﻟٮﻞ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫{ )ٮـ(ﻮ }{]ﺲ[ ﻟﻤﮟ ]ا[ )ﻟﻤ(ﺮ ﺳﻠٮﮟ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫‪480‬‬
‫‪) Considering the amount of space before the putative dāl, the text may‬‬
‫‪have kadhālika instead of innā kadhālika.‬‬
‫{]ﺴ[ﺤﻮ ]ں ۝[ ٯـ]ﺴ[ﻬ]ﻢ[ ٯﮑﺎ ں‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫{ـ)ﻮ( ٮ ]و هﻮ[ ﻣﻠ)ٮﻢ( ۝‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫{]ﻠ[‪ / /‬ٯـ)ﻰ( ٮـ‪ / /‬ا‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫)‪Folio 18 A (Q 15.4 – 15.33‬‬
‫‪{}/‬‬ ‫‪] /‬ا[ )ﻻ( و ﻟ)ﻬ(‪ / /‬ﮐٮٮ ﻣ‪)//‬ﻠ(]ﻮ[ )م( ‪)/ /‬ﺎ( ‪/‬‬ ‫} {‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫]ﺣﻠﻬ[)ﺎ( و ‪]//‬ﺎ[ ‪//‬ﺴٮﺤﺮ و ں ۝ )ٯـ(ﻠﻮ ا ٮﺎ ٮـﻬ)ﺎ( ا ﻟﺪ )ﯼ ا ٮﺮ ل( ﻋﻠٮـ]ﻪ[ } {‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{]ﮏ[ )ﻟ(]ﻤ[)ﺤٮﻮ ں ۝ ﻟ(]ﻮ[ ﻣﺎ ٮﺎ ٮـ)ٮـ(ٮﺎ ٮﺎ ﻟ)ﻤﻠ(ٮـ)ﮑ(]ﻪ[ )ا( ں )آٮـ(]ٮ[ } {‬ ‫‪} / /‬‬
‫‪481‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫{)ﮟ( ]۝[ )و ﻣ(]ﺎ[ ٮٮﺮ ]ل[ ا )ﻟ(ﻤﻠٮـ]ﮑ[ﻪ ا ﻻ )ٮـ(ﺎ )ﻟﺤٯ( و ﻣ)ﺎ( ﮐﺎ } {‬ ‫‪)//‬ﮟ ا ﻟ(}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ٮـ]ﻮ[ )ا( ا د ا )ﻣ(ٮﻄﺮ)ٮـ(ﮟ ]۝[ )ا( ‪)//‬ﺎ( ٮﺤﮟ ]ٮـ[ٮﺮ)ل( ا ﻟ)ﺪ آ(‪) //‬و( ا ‪)//‬ﺎ ﻟ(‪//‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻟ)ﺤ(ٯـﻄ}{‬
‫ں ۝ و ﻟٯﺪ ا ر ﺳﻠٮﺎ ﻣﮟ )ٯٮـ(ﻟ)ﮏ( ٯﯽ ﺳٮﻊ ا ﻻ و ﻟ)ٮـ(ﮟ )۝( و ﻣﺎ ٮـ‪ //‬ٮٮـﻬ} {‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ﻣﮟ ر ﺳﻮ ل ا ﻻ )ﮐﺎ( ]ٮﻮ[ )ا ٮـ(ﻪ ٮﺴٮﻬﺮ و ں ۝ ﮐﺪ ﻟﮏ ﺳﻠﮑﻪ } {‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ٯﯽ ٯﻠﻮ ٮ )ا ﻟ(]ﻤ[)ﺤ(]ﺮ[ ‪]/ /‬ﮟ[ ‪ //‬ﻻ ٮﻮ ﻣ)ٮـ(ﻮ ا ٮﻪ و ٯﺪ ﺣﻠٮ ﺳٮـ)ﻪ( ا ﻻ } {‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ٮﻌﺮ } {‬ ‫‪482‬‬
‫} {]ٮـ[)ﮟ( ۝ و ﻟﻮ ٯـ]ٮـ[ﺤ)ٮـ(ﺎ )ﻋ(ﻠٮـﻬ‪ //‬ٮﺎ )ٮﺎ( ﻣ)ﮟ( ا ﻟﺴﻤﺎ ٯـ]ٮـ[)ﻄﻠﻮ( ا ٯٮﻪ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ﺣﻮ ں ۝ ﻟٯـﻠ]ﻮ[ ا ا ٮﻤﺎ ﺳ)ﮑ(ﺮ ٮ ا ٮﺼﺮ ٮﺎ ٮﻞ ٮﺤﮟ ٯﻮ م ﻣﺴﺤﻮ } {‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫)ں ۝ و( ﻟ)ٯـ(ﺪ ﺣ)ﻌ(ﻠٮﺎ ٯﯽ ا )ﻟﺴ(ﻤﺎ ٮﺮ ]و[ ﺣ)ﺎ( و )ر( ٮٮﻬﺎ ﻟﻠ)ٮـ(ﻄﺮ ]ٮـ[ﮟ ۝ و } {‬ ‫‪483‬‬
‫ر‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ﺣ)ٯـﻄ(ٮﻬﺎ ﻣﮟ ﮐﻞ ﺳٮﻄﮟ ]ر[ )ﺣٮﻢ( ۝ )ا ﻻ( ﻣﮟ ا ﺳٮﺮ ٯ ا ﻟﺴﻤﻊ } {‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ٯﺎ ٮٮﻌٮﻪ ﺳﻬٮﺎ ﻣ‪)/ /‬ﮟ( ۝ )و( ا ﻻ ر ص ﻣﺪ د ٮـ)ﻬ(ﺎ )و( ا ﻟٯٮـ} {‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫)ٯـ(ٮـ)ﻬ(ﺎ ]ر[ )و ﺳﯽ( و ا ٮٮٮﺎ ‪/ /‬ٮﻬﺎ ﻣﮟ ﮐﻞ ﺳﺎ ﯼ )ﻣﻮ( ‪] //‬و[ ں )۝( و ﺣﻌ)ﻠٮـ(‪{ } //‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫ﻣ)ﮟ( ﺳﺎ ]ﯼ[‬ ‫‪484‬‬
‫ﻟ]ﮑ[ﻢ )ٯـ(]ٮـ[ﻬﺎ ﻣﻌٮـ)ﺲ( و ﻣﮟ ﻟﺴٮﻢ ﻟ)ﻪ( ٮﺮ )ر( ‪]//‬ٮـ[ﮟ ۝ )و( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫)ا( } {‬
‫ﻻ )ٮـ(]ﺎ[ ٮﺪ ٮٮﺎ ﺣ)ﺮ ٮٮـ(ﻪ و )ﻣ(ﺎ ٮﺮ )ﻟﻪ(‪ 485‬ا ﻻ ٮٯﺪ ]ر[ ﻣﻌﻠﻮ م ۝ و ا ر } {‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫)ﺳ(ﻠٮﺎ ا ﻟﺮ ٮﺢ ﻟ)ﻮ ٯـ(]ﺢ[ ٯﺎ )ٮـ(ﺮ )ﻟٮـ(ﺎ )ﻣ(ﮟ ا ﻟﺴﻤﺎ ﻣﺎ ٯـ]ﺎ[ )ﺳ(ٯٮٮﮑﻤﻮ } {‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫ﻩ )و( ]ﻣ[)ﺎ( ا ‪]//‬ٮﻢ[ ﻟ)ﻪ ﺣﺮ ( ]ٮٮـ[ﮟ ۝ و ا ٮﺎ ٮﺤﮟ ٮـﺤٮـ)ﻰ( و )ٮـ(ﻤ‪ / /‬و )ا( ]ٮـ[)ﺎ(‬
‫‪486‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫ﻟ)ٮـ(ﺤ]ﮟ[ } {‬
‫‪481‬‬
‫‪) The traces here match al-qur’ān better than al-dhikr.‬‬
‫‪482‬‬
‫‪) A horizontal line is visible beneath fā’ and the tooth. Perhaps the scribe‬‬
‫‪first wrote fī here but then changed it to fīhi.‬‬
‫‪483‬‬
‫‪) There is no trace of a wāw after rā’, nor is there enough room for a letter.‬‬
‫‪484‬‬
‫‪) The traces here match mā better than in.‬‬
‫‪485‬‬
‫‪) It seems the scribe made a mistake here, writing one tooth instead of‬‬
‫‪two at the beginning of the word.‬‬
‫‪486‬‬
‫‪) It is not clear if a tooth precedes the initial ḥā’ or not.‬‬
‫ا ﻟ)ﻮ ر ٮﻮ ں( ۝ و ا ]ٮـ[)ﺎ( ﻟٮـﻌ)ﻠﻢ ا ﻟ(]ﻤ[)ﺴ(ٮٯﺪ )ﻣٮﮟ( ﻣ)ٮﮑﻢ( و ٮـ]ﻌ[ﻠﻢ ا } {‬ ‫‪19‬‬

‫ﻟﻤﺴ]ٮﺤﺮ[ ٮﮟ ۝ و ا ‪ / /‬ر ٮﮏ )ﻟ(ٮﺤﺴﺮ ه‪ //‬ا ]ٮﻪ[ ﻟ]ﺤ[)ﮑ(‪]//‬ﻢ[ ﻋﻠٮﻢ )۝( و } {‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫)ﻟ(}{‪ //‬ﺣ]ﻠ[)ٯٮـ(ﺎ )ا( ﻻ ٮﺴﮟ ﻣ)ﮟ( ﺻﻠﺼﻞ ﻣﮟ ]ﺣ[ﻤﺎ ﻣ)ﺴ(ٮﻮ ں ۝ و } {‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫ا )ﻟ(ﺤﮟ ﺣﻠٯـ‪ / /‬ﻣﮟ ٯٮـ)ﻞ( )ﻣ(ﮟ )ٮـ(ﺎ ر )ﺳﻤ(ﻮ ]م[ )۝( و ا د ٯﻞ ر ٮـ]ﮏ[ } {‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫ﻟﻠ)ﻤ(ﻠٮـﮑﻪ ا )ٮـ(‪ / /‬ﺣﻠ]ٯ[ ٮـ)ﺴ(]ﺮ[ )ا( ﻣ)ﮟ ﺻ(ﻠ)ﺼ(ﻞ ﻣﮟ ﺣﻤﺎ ﻣﺴٮـ)ﻮ ں( } {‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫ٯـ‪) //‬د ا( ﺳﻮ ٮٮﻪ و ٮٯـﺤٮ )ٯٮـ(]ﻪ[ )ﻣ(ﮟ ر و ﺣ)ﻰ( ٯٯـ]ﻌ[ﻮ ﻟﻪ } {‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫ﺳﺤﺪ ٮﮟ ]۝[ ٯﺴﺤﺪ ا ﻟ)ﻤ(ﻠٮـﮑﻪ آ)ﻠ(]ﻬﻢ[ )ا( ﺣﻤﻌٮﮟ ۝ ا ﻻ ا ٮـﻠٮـ]ﺲ[} {‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪] //‬ٮﯽ[ )ا ں( ٮـﮑ)ﻮ ں( ﻣ)ﻊ( )ا ﻟ(]ﺴﺤﺪ[ ٮﮟ ۝ ٯـ)ﻞ( ٮﺎ ٮـﻠٮـ)ﺲ( ﻣﺎ ﻟﮏ} {‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫]ا[ )ﻻ( ٮﮑﻮ ]ں[ ﻣﮟ ا )ﻟ(]ﺴﺤﺪ[ ٮـ]ﮟ[ )۝( ٯـ)ﻞ( ﻟﻢ ا ‪) / /‬ﻻ( ‪{ }/ /‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫)‪Folio 18 B (Q 15.33 – 15.74‬‬
‫} { ﻟٮـ]ﺴﺮ[ ﺣﻠٯـ‪ / /‬ﻣﮟ ﺻﻠ]ﺼﻞ ﻣ[)ﮟ ﺣﻤﺎ( ﻣﺴٮﻮ ں ۝ ٯﻞ ]ٯـ[ﺎ )ﺣﺮ( ح ‪/ /‬ﻬ‪{ }487‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ٮﮏ )ر( ﺣٮﻢ )۝( و ا ں ﻋﻠٮﮏ ﻟﻌٮـ)ٮٮـ(ﺎ ا ﻟﯽ ٮﻮ م ا ﻟﺪ )ٮـ(ﮟ )۝( ٯﻞ‬ ‫‪488‬‬
‫} {ا‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫} {ٮ ٯﺎ ٮﻄﺮ ٮﯽ ا ﻟﯽ ٮﻮ م )ٮـ(ٮﻌٮﻮ ں ۝ ٯﻞ ٯﺎ ٮﮏ ﻣ)ﮟ( )ا(} {]ٮـ[)ﮟ( ۝‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫} { ﻟﯽ ٮﻮ م ا ﻟﻮ )ٯـ(ٮ ا ﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮ م ۝ ٯﻞ )ر( ٮ ٮﻤﺎ ]ا[ ‪] / /‬ٮٮـ[‪ / /‬ﻻ ر‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫} {ـﮟ ﻟﻬﻢ ٯﯽ ا ﻻ )ر( ص و ﻻ ﻋﻮ ٮٮﻬﻢ ا ]ﺣﻤ[ﻌٮـﮟ ۝ ا ]ﻻ[ )ﻋ(ٮﺎ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻋٮﺪ ﯼ‬ ‫‪490‬‬
‫)ﻣ(ﺴٮـٯٮـ)ﻢ( ۝ ا ں‬ ‫‪489‬‬
‫} {)ﺪ ﮎ( ﻣٮـﻬ)ﻢ( ا ﻟﻤﺤﻠﺼٮﮟ ۝ ٯﻞ هﺪ ا ﺻﺮ ط ‪//‬ﻠﻰ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ا ﻻ ﻣﮟ ا ٮـ)ٮـﻌ(ﮏ ﻣﮟ‬ ‫‪492‬‬
‫ﻟ)ٮﺲ( ﻟﮏ ﻋﻠٮﻬﻢ )ﺳ(ﻠﻄﮟ و ﻻ ﺳ} {ﻞ‬ ‫‪491‬‬
‫} {ٮـﻬ)ﻢ(‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫} {‪]//‬ﻌ[ﻮ ]ٮـ[ﮟ )۝ و( ا ں ﺣﻬٮﻢ )ﻣ(ﻌ)ٮـ(ﺪ ه]ﻢ[ ا ‪]/ /‬ﻌٮـ[)ﮟ(‪ / /‬ﻟﻬﺎ ﺳٮﻌﻪ ا ٮـ)ﻮ(} {‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫} {آ)ﻞ( ٮـ)ﺎ( ٮ ﻣ‪//‬ﻬ)ﻢ( ﺣﺮ )ﻣٯﺴﻮ( ]م[ ۝ ا ں ا ﻟ)ﻤ(ٮٯٮﮟ ٯﯽ ﺣٮٮ )و(‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫} {]ٮﻮ[ ں ۝ ا ]د ﺣ[ﻠ)ﻮ( هﺎ ٮـ)ﺴ(ﻠﻢ ا ﻣ)ٮـ(ٮﮟ ۝ ا ﺣﻮ ٮﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺳﺮ ر ﻣٮـ]ٯـ[ٮﻠٮﮟ ۝‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ٮﻤﺴﻬﻢ ٯـ]ٮـ[ﻬﺎ )ﻣ(ﮟ ٮـ]ﺼ[ٮ و ﻣ)ﺎ( هﻢ ﻣٮﻬﺎ ٮـ)ﻤ(ﺤﺮ ﺣٮﮟ ۝ ‪//‬ٮـ)ﻰ( ﻋٮﺪ ﯼ‬ ‫‪493‬‬
‫} {)ﺎ(‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪487‬‬
‫‪) The traces before hā’ do not quite match an initial mīm followed by a‬‬
‫‪tooth.They match one mīm, or two teeth, or a lām and a tooth.‬‬
‫‪488‬‬
‫‪) It is not clear if this alif is connected to a letter before it or not.‬‬
‫‪489‬‬
‫‪) It seems the scribe initially forgot to write ʽalā here, since it is written‬‬
‫‪slightly above the line, in the small space available between ṣirāṭ and mustaqīm.‬‬
‫‪490‬‬
‫‪) The letter nūn may be pointed, as there is a small dash inside it.‬‬
‫‪491‬‬
‫‪) This word may be minhum, in which case the sentence would be awk-‬‬
‫‪ward, or ʽalayhim, in which case this would be a scribal error, since ʽalayhim ap-‬‬
‫‪pears again after laka.‬‬
‫‪492‬‬
‫‪) This word may be sabīl.‬‬
‫‪493‬‬
‫‪) The shape of this alif suggests it is not part of a lā. Perhaps the text has‬‬
‫‪mā here.‬‬
‫} { ٮﯽ ا ٮﺎ )ا( ﻟ]ﻌٯـ[ﻮ ‪) //‬ا( ﻟﺮ )ﺣٮـ(ﻢ )۝( و ا ں ﻋﺪ ٮﯽ هﻮ ا ﻟﻌ)ﺪ( ا ٮ‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫} { ﻟٮﻢ )۝( و ٮٮـ)ٮـ(ﻬﻢ ﻋﮟ )ﺻ(ٮڡ ا ٮﺮ هٮﻢ ۝ ا د د ﺣﻠﻮ ا ﻋﻠٮـ)ﻪ(‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫و ﺣﻠ)ﻮ( ں ۝ ٯﻠﻮ ا ﻻ ٮﻮ )ﺣ(ﻞ )ﻣ(ٮﺎ‬ ‫} {ـ]ٯـ[)ﻠ(ﻮ ا ﺳﻠ)ﻤ(ﺎ )ٯـ(ﻞ ا )ٮـ(ﺎ ﻣٮﮑﻢ‬
‫‪494‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
‫} { ]ٮﺎ[ ٮٮﺴﺮ ﮎ ٮـﻌﻠ)ﻢ( ﻋﻠ)ٮﻢ( )۝( ٯﻞ ٮﺴﺮ ٮﻤﻮ ‪//‬ﻰ ﻋﻠﯽ ا ں ﻣ)ﺴٮـ(ﻰ‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ٮٮـ)ﺴ(ﺮ و ں )۝ ٯـ(ﻠﻮ ا )ٮـ(ٮﺴﺮ ﮎ ٮﺎ ﻟﺤٯ ٯـ)ﻠﺎ ٮـ(ﮑﮟ )ﻣ(ﮟ‬ ‫‪495‬‬
‫} {]ا[ ﻟ]ﮑ[ٮﺮ ٯٮﻤﺎ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫} {]ا[ ﻟٯٮـﻄ)ٮـ(ﮟ ۝ ٯﻞ ]و[ ﻣﮟ ٮٯٮﻂ ﻣﮟ ر ﺣ)ﻤ(ﻪ ر ٮﻪ )ا ﻻ( ا ﻟ)ﺼ(ﻠ]ﻮ[ ں ۝‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫} {]ٯﻞ[ )و( ]ﻣ[‪ //‬ﺣﻄٮﮑﻢ ا ٮﻪ ا ﻟﻤ)ﺮ ﺳ(ﻠﻮ ں ۝ ٯﻠﻮ ا ا ٮﺎ ا ر ‪/ /‬ﻠٮﺎ ا‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫} {]ﻰ[ ‪ / /‬م ﻣﺤﺮ ﻣٮﮟ ۝ ا ﻻ ا ل ﻟﻮ ط ا ٮﺎ ﻣٮـﺤ)ﻮ ه(ﻢ ا ﺣ]ﻤ[‪//‬ٮﮟ ۝ ا ﻻ‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫} { )ﻣﺮ( ٮﻬﻢ ا ٮـ)ﻬ(ﺎ )آ(ﺎ ٮٮ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻌٮﺮ ٮﮟ ۝ ٯﻠﻤﺎ ﺣﺎ ا )ل( ﻟ)ﻮ ط( ا‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫} {]ﻣﺮ[ ﺳﻠ)ٮـ(ﮟ ۝ ٯﻞ ٯـ)ﻮ( م )ﻣٮﮑﺮ و( ں )۝( ٯﻠﻮ ا )ٮـ(ﻞ ﺣٮٮﮏ ٮﻤﺎ )آ(ﺎ ٮﻮ‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫و ں ۝ و ا ٮٮٮﮏ ٮﺎ ﻟﺤٯ و ا ٮﺎ ﻟ)ﺼﺪ( ٯـ)ٮﮟ( ۝ ‪]{ }//‬ﺳ[ﺮ‬ ‫‪496‬‬
‫} { ‪)/ /‬ﻪ( ٮـﻤٮـ]ﺮ[‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫} {]ﺎ[ هﻠﮏ ٮـ)ٯـ(ﻄﻊ )ﻣ(ﮟ ا ﻟٮﻞ و ا ٮـ)ٮـ(ﻊ ا د ٮﺮ )ه(ﻢ و ﻻ ٮـ)ﻠ(‪/ /‬ٮ‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫} {‪)/ /‬ﮑ(ﻢ ا ﺣﺪ و ا ﻣﺼﻮ ا ﺣٮٮ ٮﺎ ﻣﺮ و ں ۝ )و( ٯـ]ﺼٮـ[ٮﺎ ا ﻟٮﻪ‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫} {]ﺪ[ ﻟﮏ ا ﻻ ﻣﺮ و ا ں د ٮﺮ هﻮ ﻻ ﻣٯـ]ﻄ[ﻮ ع ﻣﺼٮﺤٮﮟ ۝ و ﺣﺎ ا‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫} {‪ / /‬ا ﻟﻤﺪ ٮٮﻪ ٮـﺴ]ٮـ[‪//‬ﺴﺮ و ں ۝ ٯﻞ ﺻٮٯﯽ ٯﻼ ٮـٯـ)ﺼﺤ(ﻮ ں )۝( و ا ٮـ)ٯﻮ ا(‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫} { ﻟﻠﻪ ٯﻼ ٮﺤﺮ و ں ۝ ٯﻠﻮ ا ا و ﻟﻢ ٮٮﻬﮏ )ﻋ(ﮟ ا ﻟ)ﻌ(ﻠﻤ‪//‬ﮟ ۝ ٯﻞ هﻮ )ﻻ(‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪497‬‬
‫} {‪]//‬ٮﯽ[ ا ]ں[ ﮐٮٮﻢ ٯﻌﻠٮﮟ ۝ ﻟ)ﻌ(ﻤﺮ ﮎ ا ٮـﻬ)ﻢ( ﻟٯﯽ )ﺳ(]ﮑﺮ[ ه)ﻢ(‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫} {‪ //‬ﺣﺪ ٮﻬﻢ ا ﻟﺼ)ٮـ(ﺤ]ﻪ[ ﻣ)ﺴﺮ ٯـ(‪)//‬ﮟ ۝ و( ]ﺣ[‪)//‬ﻠٮـﺎ( ‪]//‬ﻠ[‪)//‬ﻬﺎ ا ﺳ(‪//‬ﻠ]ﻬ[ﺎ‬ ‫‪29‬‬
‫)‪Folio 19 B (Q 15.87–99 – 25.1–8‬‬
‫{ )ا( ں ]ا[ ﻟ]ﻌﻄ[‪/ /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{]ﻢ[ و ﻻ )ٮﺤﺮ( ں ]ﻋ[ﻠٮـ]ﻬﻢ[‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫۝( ]آﻤ[ﺎ ا ‪//‬ﺮ ﻟٮﺎ‬ ‫‪498‬‬
‫{ ٮﺮ )ﻣٮٮﮟ‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{ـٯﺮ )ا( ں ]ﻋﺼ[‪//‬ﮟ )۝ و( ]ر[ ٮـ]ﮏ[‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{ ٮﻌﻤﻠﻮ ں ۝ ٯﺎ )ﺻﺪ ع( ‪)/ /‬ﺎ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪494‬‬
‫‪) The letter nūn may be pointed, as there is a small dash above the tooth.‬‬
‫‪495‬‬
‫‪) The final alif is rather pale except its base. Maybe the scribe erased it.‬‬
‫‪496‬‬
‫‪) It seems the scribe initially wrote wāw at the end of this grapheme, but‬‬
‫‪changed it to rā’ later.‬‬
‫‪497‬‬
‫‪) There is no trace of a tooth before hā’. This word may be sukrihim, which‬‬
‫‪is reported for al-Aʽmash here (al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 4:577).‬‬
‫‪498‬‬
‫‪) The text seems to have nadhīrun mubīnun.‬‬
//‫ﮟ‬/ /‫]ٮٮـ[ﮏ ا ﻟﻤﺴٮـ‬//[‫ﺎ ]آ‬// ‫ﮟ ۝ ا‬/ /{ } 6

/ / [‫{ ﻟٮـ)ﻬ(ﺎ ا )ﺣﺮ ٯـ(]ﺴ[ﻮ ڡ ٮﻌﻠﻤﻮ )ں( ۝ ]و‬ } 7
(‫)ﮏ‬// ‫ ﻟﻮ ں ۝ ٯـ)ﺴ(ٮﺢ )ٮﺤﻤﺪ( ر‬/ / 499
(‫{]ﮎ[ ﻣ)ﺎ‬ } 8
500
/ / ‫ﮏ ا ﻟٮٯٮـ)ﮟ( ۝‬//‫{]ﻋ[ٮﺪ ر ٮﮏ )ﺣ(ٮﺎ ٮﺎ ٮـ‬ } 9
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{ } 10
(‫ )ﻩ‬/ /[‫]ﻋ‬ 501
(‫)ﻰ‬/ / (‫ )ل‬/ /(‫ ]ﮎ[ )ا ﻟ‬//[‫)ﻢ( ۝ ]ٮٮـ‬//[‫{]ﺣ‬ } 11
‫)ﺮ( ا ۝ ا ﻟﺪ ﯼ )ﻟﻪ( ]ﻣ[)ﻠ(]ﮏ[ )ا( ﻟﺴﻤﻮ ٮ‬// (‫)ﺪ‬//{ } 12
‫ﻠ]ٯ[ ﮐﻞ‬// [‫]و‬ 503
‫]ٮـ[)ﻪ( و )ﻻ( ]و[ ﻟﺪ ا‬//‫ٮٮﺤﺪ ﺻ‬ 502
[‫{]ﻢ‬ } 13
‫{)و( ا ٮﺤﺪ و ا ﻣﮟ )د و( ں ا ﻟ)ﻠﻪ( ا ﻟﻬﻪ ﻻ‬ } 14
{ } (‫ﻣﻮ ٮﺎ و ﻻ ﺣ)ٮﻮ( ﻩ و ﻻ ٮﺴﻮ ر ا )۝‬ 505
‫]ﻣ[ﻠﮑﮟ‬ 504
{ } 15
{ } ‫{ )ا( ا ں )ه(]ﺪ[ ا ا )ﻻ( ا )ٯـ(]ﮏ[ )ا( ٯٮﺮ )ٮـ(ﻪ و‬ } 16
(‫ )و( ر )ا ۝‬/ / 506
(‫)ﺎ‬//(‫)ﻠ‬//(‫{ )ﺣﺮ( ٮﮟ )۝( ﻟ)ٯـ(ﺪ )ﺣ(ﺎ و ا )ﻃ‬ } 17
‫و ٯﻠﻮ‬
[‫{)ﮟ( ۝ ا آ]ٮٮٮـ[ﻬﺎ ٯـﻬ)ﻰ( ]ٮـﻤ[ﻠﻰ )ﻋ(ﻠٮـ)ﻪ( ٮـ)ﮑ(ﺮ ﻩ ]و‬ } 18
{ } ‫ ٯـ)ﻰ( ا ﻟ]ﺴ[)ﻤ(ﺎ )و( ا ﻻ‬/ /(‫{]ﻪ[ ا ﻟﺪ ﯼ ٮـﻌﻠ]ﻢ[ ا )ﻟ‬ } 19
{ } ‫{ )ا( ر ﺣٮﻤﺎ ۝ )و( ٯﻠﻮ ا ﻣﻞ )هﺪ( ا ا ]ﻟ[ﺮ‬ } 20
{ } (‫{ﺴﻰ ٯﯽ ا ﻻ )ﺳ(ﻮ ٯ ﻟ)ﻮ( ﻻ ا ]ٮـ[ﺮ )ل‬ } 21
{ }(‫ )ا‬//(‫{ ٮﺪ ٮﺮ ا ۝ ا ]و ٮﮑﻮ[ ں ﻟﻪ آ)ٮـ‬ } 22
{ } (‫} { )ا ں( }{ٮٮـﻌ)ﻮ‬//‫{ـٮﻬﺎ و ٯﻞ ا )ﻟ(]ﻄ[ﻠ‬ } 23
499
) It is not clear whether the initial mīm is preceded by a tooth or not.
500
) It is not clear whether something is written here. There are traces at the
beginning that might belong to an alif.
501
) This word may be ʽalā, in which case the word al-furqān is probably writ-
ten after ʽabdihi.
502
) The missing part on this line is bigger than is needed for the phrase
wa-l-arḍi wa-lam. Perhaps the text has an additional phrase, such as wa-mā
baynahumā, after wa-l-arḍi.
503
) The phrase wa-lam yakun lahu sharīkun fī l-mulki appears to be miss-
ing.
504
) This physically missing part would have had room for about three words.
Perhaps here the text has yakhluqūna shay’an wa-lā.
505
) It is not clear if mīm is preceded by a letter or not.
506
) The distance between ẓā’ and lām is rather long, but it is not clear if a
letter is written between them.
Folio 19 A (Q 25.14 – 25.27)
{ } (‫و )ا د‬ 1
{ } (‫ا )ﻟﺤ(ﻠ]ﺪ[ ا ﻟٮـ)ﻰ‬ 2
{ }(‫ )ﻣﺼ(]ٮﺮ[ ا )۝( ﻟﻬ)ﻢ( ٯٮـ)ﻬ‬/ / 3
{ }// ‫)ﻋ(ﺪ ا ﻣﺴﻮ ﻻ ۝ و ٮﻮ م‬ 4
{ } ‫ا ٮٮﻢ ا ﺻﻠﻠ)ٮـ(ﻢ ]ﻋ[ٮٮﺪ ﯼ هﻮ‬ 5
{ } ‫ٯﻠﻮ ا ر ٮٮﺎ ﻣﺎ ﮐﺎ ں ٮٮٮﻌﯽ‬ 6
{ } (‫ﻣﮟ ا و ﻟٮﺎ و ﻟﮑﮟ ﻣٮﻌٮ هﻮ )ﻻ‬ 7
{ }‫ﮐﺮ و ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ ا ٯﻮ ﻣﺎ ٮﻮ ر ا ۝ ٯـ‬ 8
{ }(‫ﻟﮏ ﺻﺮ ٯﺎ و ﻻ ٮـﺼ)ﺮ( ا و ﻣ)ﮟ‬ 507
‫ں‬ 9
{ } ‫)آ(ٮٮـ]ﺮ[ ا ۝ و ﻣﺎ ا )ر( ]ﺳ[ﻠٮﺎ‬ 508
‫ﻋﺪ ا ]ٮـ[ﺎ‬ 10
{ } ‫ا ﻻ ﻣﮟ ه)ﻮ( ٮﺎ )آ(ﻞ ﻣﮟ ا ﻟﻄﻌﻢ و‬ 11
{ }‫و )ﺣ(ﻌﻠٮﺎ ٮﻌﺼﻬﻢ ﻟٮﻌﺺ ٯٮٮﻪ ا )ٮـ(ﺼ‬ 12
{ }‫ﻻ ٮـ‬ 509
‫ٮﺼٮﺮ )ا( ۝ و ٯﻞ ا ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ﮐٯﺮ و ا‬ 13
{ }(‫} {]ٮـ[ٮﺮ ل ا ﻟﻤﻠ)ٮـﮑ(ﻪ )ﻟ(ٯﺪ ا )ﺳ(ٮـﮑٮـ)ﺮ و( ا ٯـ)ﻰ‬ 14
{ }‫} {ﻋٮـ)ﻮ( ا آٮـ)ٮـ(ﺮ ا ۝ و )ٮـ(]ﻮ[ م )ٮٮﺮ( ل ا ﻟﻤﻠ‬ 15
{ }(‫ﻣٮﺪ ]ﻟ[ﻠﻤﺤ)ﺮ( ﻣٮﮟ و ٯﺎ ﻟﻮ ا ﺣﺤﺮ ا ﻣﺤﺤ)ﻮ( ر )ا‬ 16
{ } ‫} {]ﻠﻮ[ ا )ﻣ(ﮟ )ﻋﻤ(ﻞ ٯـﺤ]ﻌ[ﻠٮﻪ هٮﺎ ﻣٮٮﻮ )ر( ا ۝‬ 17
{ } ‫} { ﺣٮـ]ﺮ[ ﻣﺴٮٯﺮ ا و ا ﺣﺴﮟ ﻣٯٮﻼ ۝‬ 18
{ } ‫ )ٮـ(ﻠﺎ ۝ ا‬/ /‫} { )و( ٮﺮ ﻟٮ ا ﻟﻤﻠٮﮑﻪ ٮـ‬ 19
{ }(‫} { ﺣﻤﮟ و }{)ﺎ(} {ﻠﻰ ا ﻟﮑ]ٯﺮ ٮـ[ﮟ ]ٮـ[ﻮ )ﻣﺎ‬ 20
{ } ‫{ ﻋﻠﯽ ٮﺪﻩ ٮٯﻮ‬ }‫)ا( ﻟ‬ 510
{ } 21
507
) The physically missing part of the previous line would have had room
for about four words, hardly enough for the standard text before ṣarfan. Perhaps
the phrase bi-mā taqūlūna is missing.
508
) One can see a pale, horizontal line touching alif. Perhaps the scribe first
wrote a final bā’ here but then erased its tail and added an alif instead.
509
) Considering the visible words, the physically missing part may have con-
tained lā narjū liqā’a llāhi ḥattā, or lā nu’minu laka ḥattā.
510
) There is no writing in this line before this point, perhaps since it would
have interfered with the previous line.
Folio 24 Verso (Q 30.38 – 30.50)
(‫ٮـ]ﻞ[ )د‬/ /‫{]ﻣ[ﺴﮑٮﮟ )و( ا ٮﮟ ا ﻟ‬ } 1

‫{]ﻪ[ )ا( ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( و )ا( و ﻟ]ٮـ[)ﮏ( ]ه[ﻢ‬ } 2
[‫]ﺮ ٮﻮ[ ا ٯﯽ )ا( ]ﻣﻮ ل‬//(‫ )ﻟ‬//(‫{)ٮـ‬ } 3
(‫{ و ]ﻣ[ﺎ ا ٮٮٮﻬﻢ ﻣﮟ ر ]آ[)ﻮ‬ } 4
/ /(‫{)ﺎ و ﻟٮـ(]ﮏ هﻢ[ ا )ﻟﻤ‬ } 5
‫ﻢ ٮﻢ )ٮـﺤ(ٮﮑﻢ‬/ /(‫{]ٮﻢ[ )ٮـﻤ‬ } 6
‫]ٮﺤٮﻪ[ و ٮﻌﻠﯽ‬/ / ‫)ﺎ( ﯼ‬/ /(‫{)ﻠ‬ } 7
(‫ و )ا ﻟ(]ٮﺤﺮ[ ٮـ]ﻤ[)ﺎ‬/ /[‫{ ]ٯـ[)ﻰ ا( ]ﻟ‬ } 8
511
(‫ ا ﻟﺪ ﯼ ٮـ)ﻌ(]ﻤ[)ﻠﻮ‬/ /‫{)ﻬ(]ﻢ[ )ٮـ(ﻌ‬ } 9
‫{)ﺮ( و ا )ٯﯽ( ا )ﻻ ر ص( ٯﺎ‬ } 10
{ }(‫{ ﻟﺪ ٮﮟ ]ﻣ[ﮟ ٯـ)ٮـ(ﻠ)ﻬ(ﻢ ﮐﺎ )ں‬ } 11
{ } (‫ٯٮﻞ )ٮﻮ‬
513 512
(‫{ ا و )ﺣ(ﻬ)ﮑﻢ‬ } 12
{ }(‫{]ﺪ[ ﻋﻮ ں ۝ ﻣﮟ آ]ٯـ[)ﺮ ٯـ(ﻌﻠ)ٮﻪ‬ } 13
{ }//{}//‫ )ٮـﻤﻬ(ﺪ ]و[ ں ۝ ﻟ‬//[‫]ﻬ‬/ /{ } 14
{ }// (‫ )ا‬/ / ‫)ﻠﺤ(ٮ‬/ /{ } 15
(‫)ﺢ‬// (‫ )ا( ﻟ)ﺮ‬/ / ‫ )ٮـ(ﺮ‬/ /{ } 16
514
‫{ﻟ)ٮـ(ﺤ]ﺮ[ ﯼ )ا( ]ﻟ[ٯـ]ﻠ[)ﮏ( ٯﯽ ا‬ } 17
(‫]ﮑﺮ[ )و‬/ /(‫)ﻠ‬//(‫ ]و[ )ﻟ‬//(‫{)ﻠ‬ } 18
[‫]ﻬﻢ‬/ /(‫{ )ر ﺳﻼ( ا )ﻟ‬ } 19
‫)ﻮ( ا‬/ /[‫{ ]ﻣ[)ﮟ( ]ا ﻟ‬ } 20
‫ ]ﯼ[ ٮﺮ‬/ / ‫ا‬ 515
//(‫]ٮﮟ ۝[ )ه‬/ /{ } 21
{ } ‫ ]آ[}{]ٯـ[ﺎ‬/ /(‫ ]ٯﯽ[ )ا ﻟ‬//[‫{]ﻄ‬
516
} 22
511
) The text seems to have yaʽmalūn instead of ʽamilū.
512
) The text might have fa-aqīmū awjuhakum or fa-aqīmū wajhakum
(Ubayy b. Kaʽb reportedly had awjuhakum instead of wujūhakum in Q 4.43 (al-
Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 2:81)).
513
) The phrase an ya’tiya appears to be missing.
514
) The text may have fī l-baḥr in addition to the standard reading.
515
) The text may have huwa instead of allāhu.
516
) The text might have fa-yabsuṭuhu fī l-samā’i kisafan.
‫{‪/ /‬ﺎ ]د ا[ )ا( ‪]//‬ٮ ٮﻪ[ }{‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪23‬‬

‫‪{} /‬‬ ‫{ ٮـ]ﺴٮـ[‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫ﻟ]ﻤ[‪)//‬ﻠ(ﺴ‪//‬ﮟ ‪] //‬ٯـ[‪] //‬ٮـ[} {‬ ‫‪517‬‬
‫{)ﻢ(‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫)‪Folio 3 Verso (Q 35.39 – 35.40‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{‪} / /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫{‬ ‫{ ا ﻟ‪}/ /‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{]ٯـ[)ﺮ( ‪)/ /‬ٯـ(ﺮ هﻢ }‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫{‬ ‫‪] /‬ﻣ[ﮟ د ]و[ )ں(}‬ ‫{‪/‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{‪ / /‬ص ا ‪ //‬ﻟﻬﻢ }‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫{‬ ‫آ]ٮـ[)ٮـ(ﺎ ]ٯـ[)ﻬ(ﻢ}‬ ‫‪518‬‬
‫{ـﻠ)ٮـ(]ﻬ[‪//‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫{‬ ‫{‪/ /‬ﺼ]ﻬﻢ[ ‪]/ /‬ﺼ[ﺎ ا}‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫)‪Folio Christies 2008 Verso (Q 63.1–11 – 62.1–11‬‬

‫‪519‬‬
‫]ٮﺴﻢ[ )ا ﻟ(ﻠ)ﻪ( ا ﻟ)ﺮ( ‪)/ /‬ﮟ ا( ﻟ]ﺮ[ ‪)/ /‬ﻢ( ۝ )ا( ]د[ )ا ﺣ(ﺎ ﮎ ‪ //‬ﻟﻤ]ٮٯـ[ٯﻮ ں ‪/ /‬ﺪ و ا‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪/ /‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫ر ]ﺳ[)ﻮ ل( ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ )و( ا ﻟﻠ)ﻪ( ]ٮـ[ﻌﻠﻢ ا ٮﮏ ر ﺳﻮ ﻟﻪ و ‪]//‬ﺴ[ﻬﺪ ا )ں( ا ‪/‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻟﮑﺪ ٮﻮ ں )۝( ا ٮﺤﺪ و ا ا ٮـ]ﻤٮـ[)ﻬ(ﻢ )ﺣ(‪]//‬ﻪ ٯـ[ﺼﺪ و ا ]ﻋ[ﮟ ﺳٮٮـ)ﻞ( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ا ]ٮـ[ﻬﻢ ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻣ)ﺎ( ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ ا ‪/ /‬ﻤﻠﻮ )ں ۝ د( ﻟﮏ ٮﺎ ٮﻬﻢ ا ﻣٮﻮ ا ٮﻢ )آ(]ٯـ[)ﺮ( و ا ‪//‬ﻢ ا ‪ //‬د د و )ا( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ٯـﻄٮـ]ﻊ ﻋ[ﻠﻰ ٯﻠﻮ ٮﻬﻢ د ‪//‬ﮏ ٮﺎ ٮﻬﻢ ٯﻮ م )ﻻ ٮٯـ(ٯﻬﻮ ں ۝ )و ا( ‪ //‬ا ﺣﺎ و ﮎ ]ٮـﻌﺤ[‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪520‬‬
‫ا‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ا ﺣﺴﻤ‪//‬ﻢ و ا ں ٮٯﻮ ﻟﻮ )ا ٮـﺴ(ﻤﻊ ﻟ‪//‬ﻮ ﻟ]ﻬ[ﻢ )ﮐﺎ( ٮـ‪ / /‬ﺣﺴٮ ﻣﺴٮﺪ ﻩ ٮـﺤ]ﺳٮﻮ[ ں ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫)ٯـ(ٮـﻠ‪]//‬ﻢ[ ا ﻟ‪//‬ﻪ ا ٮﯽ ٮـ)ﻮ( ٯﮑﻮ ]ں ۝[‬ ‫‪521‬‬
‫ﺻٮﺤﻪ ‪//‬ﻠٮـﻬﻢ )ه(ﻢ ا ﻟﻌ‪] //‬و ٯـ[ﺎ )ﺣ(ﺪ ‪ //‬و ]ه[‪//‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫)و( ا د ‪] //‬ٯـ[‪/ /‬‬
‫‪) /‬و( ]ﺳ[)ﻬﻢ و( ر ٮٮﻬﻢ ٮﺼﺪ و ں‬ ‫‪ /‬ﻟ)ﮑﻢ( ‪]/ /‬ﻮ[ )ل ا ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[ ﻟ‪/‬‬ ‫ﻟﻬ)ﻢ( ‪]//‬ﻌ[ﻠ)ﻮ ا( ٮـ‪/‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫)و هﻢ(‬
‫‪517‬‬
‫‪) This letter might belong to ʽalayhim, in which case min qablihi would be‬‬
‫‪missing.‬‬
‫‪518‬‬
‫‪) The text may have anzalnā ʽalayhim instead of ātaynāhum.‬‬
‫‪519‬‬
‫‪) The text may have shahidū instead of qālū nashhadu.‬‬
‫‪520‬‬
‫‪) The text seems to have thumma zdādū kufran in addition to the stan-‬‬
‫‪dard reading.‬‬
‫‪521‬‬
‫‪) This word may be fa-ḥdharūhum.‬‬
‫‪] /‬ٮـﺴ[ٮـﻌ‪//‬ﺮ )ﻟﻬ(ﻢ ﻟﮟ ٮـ]ﻌ[ٯﺮ ا ﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫ﻣ]ﺴ[)ٮـﮑ(‪ / /‬ں ‪ / /‬ا ‪//‬ﻠ‪ / /‬ا ﺳٮﻌٯﺮ ]ٮ[ ﻟ]ﻬ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ﻟ]ﻬﻢ[‬
‫ا ]ں[ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﻻ ٮـ]ﻬ[ﺪ ‪ //‬ا ﻟٯـ)ﻮ( م ‪ //‬ﻟٯـ)ﺴ(ٯـ)ٮـ(ں ۝ ه)ﻢ( ا ﻟﺪ ‪] / /‬ٮٯـ[‪ //‬ﻟ‪ //‬ں )ﻻ ٮـ(ٮٯٯﻮ ا‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﯽ ‪/ /‬‬
‫]ﻋ[ٮـ‪ / /‬ﺳﻮ ل ا ]ﻟ[ﻠﻪ ﺣٮـ)ﺎ( ٮٮـ]ٯـ[ﺼ]ﻮ[ ا ﻣﮟ ﺣ)ﻮ( ]ﻟ[ﻪ )و( ﻟﻠﻪ ﺣﺮ ٮـ]ﮟ[ ا ﻟ‪] / /‬ٮ[ و‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫)ا( ﻻ ر ]ص[‬
‫و ]ﻟﮑ[ﮟ )ا( ں ا ﻟﻤ)ٮٯـ(ٯٮﮟ )ﻻ( ‪)/ /‬ﻬﻮ ں( ۝ ‪)/ /‬ﻮ(‪ 522‬ﻟ)ﻮ( ]ں[ )ﻻ( ں ر )ﺣ(ﻌٮﺎ ا ﻟﯽ ا‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ﻟﻤ‪] / /‬ٮٮﻪ[ ﻟ‪]//‬ﺤ[ر‬
‫)ﺣﮟ ا( ﻻ ]ﻋ[ﺮ ]ﻣ[)ٮـﻬ(ﺎ ا ﻻ )د( ل و ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ا ﻟﻌ]ﺮ[ ﻩ )ﺣ(]ﻤ[‪]//‬ﻌ[ﺎ ]و[ ﻟﻠﺮ ]ﺳ[ﻮ ل و ا ﻟ)ﻤ(ﻮ‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫]ﻣ[‪/ /‬‬
‫و )ﻟ(]ﮑ[ﮟ )ا( ﻟ]ﻤ[)ٮٯٯـ(‪)//‬ﮟ ﻻ( ‪)//‬ﻌ(ﻠﻤﻮ ں ۝ ٮـ)ﺎ( ٮـﻬ‪ //‬ا ﻟﺪ ٮـ‪ / /‬ا ﻣٮـ)ﻮ( ا ﻻ ]ٮـ[ﻠﻬﮑﻢ ا‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫)ﻣﻮ ﻟ(]ﮑﻢ[‬
‫و )ﻻ ا( ‪ //‬ﻟﺪ ]آ[‪) //‬ﻋﮟ( د ﮐﺮ ا ﻟ]ﻠﻪ[ و ]ﻣ[)ﮟ( ٮٯـ]ﻌﻞ[ د ﻟ‪) / /‬ٯـ(ﺎ ]و[ ﻟ‪ / /‬ه]ﻢ[ )ا( ‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫]و[ ں ۝ ]و[ )ا ٮـ(ٯٯـ]ﻮ[ ا ﻣ)ﮟ ٯٮﻞ ا( ]ں ٮﺎ[ ‪ / /‬ا ﺣﺪ ﮐﻢ ]ا[ ﻟ‪] / /‬ٮ[ و ‪ / /‬ل ]ر[ ٮـ)ٮـ(ﺎ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫)ﻟﻮ(‬
‫ﻻ )ا ﺣ(‪/ /‬ﺎ ا ﻟﯽ ا ﺣﻞ ]ٯـ[‪)/ /‬ٮ( ٯـ]ﺎ ٮﺼﺪ[ ٯ و ]ا آ[‪] //‬ں ﻣ[ﮟ ا ﻟ]ﺼ[ﻠ]ﺤٮﮟ[ )۝(‬
‫‪524‬‬ ‫‪523‬‬
‫‪17‬‬
‫و )ﻟﮟ( ٮﻮ ﺣﺮ ]ا[‬
‫ﻟﻠﻪ ‪]/ /‬ﺴ[ﺎ ]ٮـ[)ﻌﺪ( ا ں ٮـﺤ‪ / /‬ا ﺣ)ﻠ(]ﻪ[ و ا ﻟﻠﻪ )ﺣ(‪//‬ٮﺮ ]ٮـ[ﻤﺎ ‪]//‬ﻌ[‪//‬ﻠ‪ //‬ں ۝ ]ه[ﺪ ]ﻩ[‬
‫‪525‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫)ﺣٮـ(]ﻤ[)ﻪ ﺳﻮ( ‪/ /‬‬
‫ا )ﻟ(‪/ /‬ٯـ)ٯٮـ(ﮟ ۝ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ]ٮـﺴ[)ﻢ ا ﻟ(]ﻠﻪ[‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫ا ﻟﺮ ﺣﻤ‪/ /‬‬
‫ﻟ‪ //‬ﺣٮﻢ ]۝ ٮـ[ﺴٮﺢ ﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﺎ ٯﯽ )ا ﻟﺴ(]ﻤ[)ﺎ( ]و[ )ٮ و( ﻣﺎ ٯﯽ ا )ﻻ( ]ر ص[ )ا ﻟ(‪//‬ﻠﮏ )ا‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫ﻟٯـ(‪) //‬و(‬
‫س ا ‪//‬ﻌ]ر ٮﺮ[ ا ﻟ]ﺤ[ﮑٮﻢ )۝( ا ]ﻟﺪ[ ‪]/ /‬ٮ[ ٯﯽ ا ﻻ ﻣٮـ)ﮟ( ]ر ﺳ[ﻮ ﻻ ﻣٮﻬﻢ ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻠ‪) //‬ا(‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫‪//‬ﻠ‪//‬ﻬ)ﻢ( ا ٮٮﻪ‬
‫و ٮﺮ آ‪)//‬ﻬ(‪ //‬و ]ٮـ[ﻌﻠﻤﻬﻢ ا )ﻟ(]ﮑ[‪ / /‬و ا ‪)//‬ﺤ(]ﮑ[)ﻤ(]ﻪ[ ‪ //‬ا ں ﮐﺎ ٮﻮ )ا( ]ﻣﮟ[ ٯـ)ٮﻞ( ﻟ)ٯـ(‪//‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫)ﺻ(]ﻠ[)ﻞ(‬
‫‪/‬ﮟ ‪/ /‬ﺪ ‪) 526/ /‬ﻟ(‪]//‬ﺎ[ ‪)//‬ﻠ(‪]//‬ٯﻮ[ )ا( ]ٮـ[)ﻬﻢ( ‪ //‬ه‪/ /‬‬ ‫ﻣٮـ]ٮﮟ[ ‪) //‬و( ا ]ﺣ[‪]/ /‬ﮟ[ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫ﻟﻌ)ﺮ( ٮﺮ )ا( ﻟ‪)//‬ﮑ(ٮﻢ ۝‬
‫‪522‬‬
‫‪.‬ٮٯـ ‪) The illegible part preceding wāw is rather large for the grapheme‬‬
‫‪Moreover, there are traces at its beginning that might belong to an alif. There‬‬
‫‪may be an aw in addition to the standard text.‬‬
‫‪523‬‬
‫‪) This word may be akhkhartanā as in Q 4.77.‬‬
‫‪524‬‬
‫‪) This word may be wa-akūna.‬‬
‫‪525‬‬
‫‪) This word may be yajī’a.‬‬
‫‪526‬‬
‫‪) The text might be wa-ākharīna minhum min baʽdihim.‬‬
‫]د[ ﻟﮏ )ٯـ(]ﺼ[)ﻞ( ا )ﻟ(]ﻠﻪ ٮﻮ[ ‪] / /‬ﻣ[)ﮟ( ‪]//‬ﺴ[ﺎ )و( ا ﻟ)ﻠ(‪) //‬د و ا( ﻟٯـﺼ)ﻞ( ا ﻟﻌﻄٮـ]ﻢ[‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫)۝( ‪/ /‬ﻞ ا‬
‫ﻟ‪]/ /‬ﮟ ﺣﻤ[ﻠ‪ //‬ا ا )ﻟ(‪] / /‬ر[ ٮـ]ﻪ[ ٮـ]ﻢ[ ﻟ]ﻢ ٮـﺤ[‪] / /‬ه[‪]/ /‬ﻞ ا[ )ﻟ(]ﺤﻤٮـ[ﺮ ]ٮـﺤ[ﻤﻞ ا‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫)ﺳ(ٯﺮ ا )ٮٮـ(]ﺲ[‬
‫ﻣٮﻞ )ا( ﻟ‪ / /‬م )ا ﻟﺪ( ‪) / /‬آ(]ﺪ ٮﻮ[ ا ٮـ]ﺎ[ ‪ / /‬ا ﻟ)ﻠ(]ﻪ[ و )ا ﻟﻠﻪ( ﻻ ٮﻬﺪ ﯼ ا ﻟٯـ]ﻮ م[ )ا(‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫‪ /‬ا ﻟ)ﺪ( ٮﮟ )هﺪ و( ا ا )ں( ]ر[ )ﻋ(‪//‬ٮـ]ﻢ[ ا ‪]//‬ﮑﻢ[ ا و ﻟٮﺎ ]ا[ ﻟﻠﻪ ٯﯽ ا‬ ‫ﻟ)ﻄ(ﻠ]ﻤ[‪//‬ﮟ ‪ //‬ٯﻞ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫ﻻ‬
‫)ﺣ(]ﺮ[ ﻩ ﻣﮟ ‪ / /‬ں ا ﻟٮﺎ س )ٯـ(ٮﻤٮﻮ ا ا ﻟ)ﻤ(]ﻮ[ ‪) / /‬ا ں آ(‪]//‬ٮﻢ ﺻﺪ[ ‪ / /‬۝ )و( ﻟﮟ ٮٮﻤٮﻮ ﻩ‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫ا ٮﺪ ‪] //‬ٮـﻤ[)ﺎ ٯﺪ ﻣٮ( ا ]ٮـ[ﺪ ‪//‬ﻬ]ﻢ[ و ا ]ﻟ[ﻠﻪ ﻋﻠٮﻢ ٮﺎ ﻟ]ﻄ[ﻠ]ﻤ[‪)//‬ﮟ( ]۝[ )ٯﻞ( ا ں ا ﻟﻤﻮ ٮ ا‬ ‫‪29‬‬
‫ﻟﺪ ﯼ ‪/ /‬ﺮ ‪) //‬ں( ]ﻣ[ٮـ)ﻪ( ٯﺎ ‪)//‬ﻪ ﻣ(ﻠٯٮـﮑ)ﻢ( ٮﻢ ٮﺮ د ]و ں[ ا ﻟ]ﻰ[ ﻋﻠ‪) //‬ا ﻟ(‪]/ /‬ٮ[ و ا‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫ﻟ]ﺴﻬ[)ﺪ( ﻩ‬
‫]ٯـ[ٮٮٮٮـﮑ]ﻢ[ ٮـ‪)//‬ﺎ( آ‪//‬ٮـ]ﻢ[ ‪//‬ﻌﻤﻠﻮ ]ں[ ‪/ /‬ﺎ ٮﻬﺎ ا ﻟﺪ )ٮﮟ ا( ﻣ]ٮﻮ[ )ا( ا د ا ٮﻮ دﯼ‬ ‫‪31‬‬
‫آ‪ //‬ا ﻟ]ﻠ[)ﻪ( و د‬ ‫‪528‬‬
‫ﻣ[)ﮟ ٮـ(]ﻮ[ )م ا ﻟ(]ﺤﻤ[ﻌ]ﻪ ٯـ[ﺎ ﺳﻌﻮ ا ‪] //‬ﻟﯽ[ )د(‬ ‫‪527‬‬
‫‪)//‬ﺎ ﻟ(ﺼ‪]//‬ﻮ ﻩ‬ ‫‪32‬‬
‫]ر[ و ]ا[ ا ]ﻟ[ٮٮـ]ﻊ[ د ]ﻟﮑ[)ﻢ( ﺣ]ٮﺮ[ ﻟ)ﮑ(‪) //‬ا ں( ]آٮـ[ٮـ)ﻢ( ٮـﻌﻠ)ﻤ(]ﻮ[ )ں( ۝ ]ٯـ[)ﺎ( د ا ٯـ‪/‬‬ ‫‪33‬‬
‫‪]/‬ٮ[ ا‬
‫‪ /‬و ا )ٯﯽ ا( ]ﻻ ر ص[ ‪) //‬ا ٮٮـ(ﻌﻮ ا ﻣﮟ ٯـ‪)//‬ﻞ( ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ و[ ا‬ ‫} { ﻟﺼﻠﻮ ﻩ ٯـ)ﺎ( ‪/‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬
‫‪ /‬ٮـﺤ)ٮﺮ( ]ﻩ[ ا و‬ ‫} { د ﮐﺮ و )ا( ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ ]ﮐٮٮﺮ[ ا ﻟ)ﻌ(ﻠﮑﻢ ‪/ /‬ﻠ‪) / /‬۝( ‪) //‬ا( د ‪/‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫)ﻟ(]ﻬﻮ[ )ا(} {‬
‫)‪Folio Christies 2008 Recto (Q 62.11 – 89.1–30 – 90.1–6‬‬
‫‪)/‬ﺎ( ٯﻞ ‪//‬ﺎ ]ﻋ[‪ / /‬ا )ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ[‬ ‫‪ / /‬ٮـ‪ / /‬ا ا ﻟ]ٮـﻬ[ﺎ ]و[ ٮﺮ )آ(]ﻮ[ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪) /‬ه(‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪ / /‬ﻣ]ﮟ[ ‪ //‬ﻟ]ﻠ[ﻬ]ﻮ[ و ا ﻟ]ٮﺤﺮ[ )ﻩ و( ا ]ﻟ[ﻠ]ﻪ[ )ﺣ(‪) / /‬ا( ]ﻟ[‪] / /‬ٯـ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪ / /‬ﺣٮـﻤ]ﻪ[ ﺳﻮ ر ﻩ ا )ﻟ(ﺤﻤ]ﻌﻪ[ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪) /‬ا( ]ﻟ[ﺮ )ﺣ(]ﻤ[‪ / /‬ا ﻟ‪) //‬ﺣ(‪) / /‬و( ا ﻟ)ٯـﺤ(ﺮ و ﻟ)ٮـ(‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪) /‬و( ا )ﻟﻮ( ٮـ]ﺮ ۝[ و ا ﻟﻠ‪)//‬ﻞ( ا ]د[ ا ٮﺴﺮ ۝ هﻞ ]ٯـ[‪ //‬د )ﻟﮏ(‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ٯـﺴ]ﻢ[ ﻟ]ﺪ[ ﯼ ﺣﺤ‪) //‬۝( ‪ //‬ﻟ]ﻢ[ ‪] / /‬ﮐٮڡ[ ٯـﻌ)ﻞ( ر ٮـ)ﮏ( ‪]//‬ﻌ[ﺎ ‪ //‬۝ ا ر ]م[‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪]/‬ﻠ[‪//‬ﺎ ‪ / /‬ا ﻟ‪/ /‬ﺪ ۝ و‬ ‫د )ا( ٮ ا )ﻟ(]ﻌ[ﻤ‪ 529/ /‬۝ ا ﻟ‪/‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪ /‬ﻟ‪) / /‬ا( ]و[ ‪)//‬ﺮ(‪] 530‬ٯـ[ﺮ ﻋ)ﻮ ں( ]د ﯼ[‬ ‫‪ /‬ﺣٮـ]ﻮ[ ا ‪ //‬ﻟ]ﺼ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪)/ /‬ﻮ( ]د[ ا ‪/‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪527‬‬
‫‪) This word may be bi-l-ṣalāti.‬‬
‫‪528‬‬
‫‪) This dāl is unusually long and therefore resembles an initial kāf.‬‬
‫‪529‬‬
‫‪.‬ٮﺪ ‪) The letters after mīm might be‬‬
‫‪530‬‬
‫‪) The verse seems to begin with aw tara (paralleling a-lam tara from‬‬
‫‪verse 6).‬‬
‫ ]آ[ٮـ)ﺮ( ]و[ ا‬531(‫ﻠ]ٮـﺪ[ ]۝[ )ٯﺎ‬//(‫ ا )ﻟ‬/ / ‫ﻌ]ﻮ[ ا‬// (‫ ٮـ)ﮟ‬/ / ‫ )ﻻ( و ٮـ)ﺪ( ۝ ا‬// 9
‫)ﻬ(ﺎ‬//[‫]ٯـ‬
// ‫ ا ں‬// (‫ )ا ٮ‬/ / [‫ ]ط‬//‫]ﻬﻢ[ ر ٮـ]ﮏ[ ﺳ‬//‫ﻠ‬// ‫ا ر )ﺳ(ﻞ‬/ / 10
[‫ ا )ﻻ( ]ٮـ[)ﺴﮟ( ا ]د[ ا ا ٮٮـ]ﻠﻪ[ ر ]ٮﻪ‬//‫ا ﻣ‬/ / (‫ ﺻ)ﺪ‬/ /‫ ﻟٮﺎ ﻟ‬/ / 11
[‫ )ا( ]د ا‬//‫ و ا ﻣ‬// ‫ ﻣﮟ‬/ / ‫ ا‬/ / ‫ ]ٮـ[)ﻌ(]ﻤﻪ[ )ٮـ(]ٯﻮ[ ل‬// [‫ﺎ ]ﮐﺮ ﻣﻪ‬// 12
‫)ﻰ( ا ]هٮﮟ[ ۝‬/ / ‫ ٯـ)ٮٯﻮ( ل‬//(‫ )ٯـ‬// ‫ ر‬/ /(‫ )ﻋﻠ‬/ / 533
‫و‬ 532
(‫)ﻪ‬/ / (‫ ]ٮٮـ[)ﻠ(]ٮﻪ[ )و‬// 13
(‫ ]ﻋ[)ﻠﻰ ﻃﻌ(ﻢ )ا‬/ / (‫و ﻻ ٮـﺤ]ﺼ[)ﻮ‬ 534
‫ﻢ‬//‫ ں ]ا[ ﻟٮٮـ‬/ / (‫)ﻠﺎ ٮﻞ‬// 14
(‫ﺎ ۝ )و( ٮـﺤ)ٮﻮ ں‬/ / ‫ﺎ‬//[‫ ٮ ا ]ﮐ‬/ / ‫]ﻮ[ ں ا‬//[‫ )و ٮﺎ( ]ﮐ‬/ /[‫]ﻤﺴﮑ‬// 15
(‫ ]ﮐ[ﺎ )د‬// ‫ ص‬// (‫ ا )د( ا ]د ﮐٮ[ ا )ﻻ‬/ / ‫ ۝‬//(‫ﻟ]ﻤ[ﻞ ﺣٮﺎ ﺣ)ﻤ‬ 16
(‫ و ﺣﺎ )ﯼ( ٮـ)ﻮ‬// ‫ﺎ ﺻ]ٯـ[ﺎ‬//(‫ ٮﮏ و ا )ﻟ(ﻤﻠﮏ )ﺻ‬// ‫]ﮐ[ﺎ )۝( )و( ﺣﺎ‬ 17
[‫ ﮐﺮ ا )ﻻ( ٮـﺴ)ﮟ( و )ا( ٮﯽ ﻟﻪ ا )ﻟ(]ﺪ‬//‫ ٮٮـ‬/ /[‫ ]ﻣ‬/ / [‫ﻣٮﺪ ٮـﺤ]ﻬ[ٮـ]ﻢ‬ 18
[‫ ٮﻮ ﻣٮـ)ﺪ( ﻻ ٮـﻌ)ﺪ( ]ٮ‬// (‫ )ﻣ(]ٮ[ ﻟﺤٮـ]ٮـ[)ﻰ‬//[‫ ]ٯـ‬/ / ‫ ٮٯـ]ﻮ[ ل‬// (‫ﮐﺮ )ﯼ‬ 19
‫ ]ٮـ[ﺎ )ٮـ(ﻬﺎ ا‬// (‫ ا )ﺣﺪ‬//‫ )و( ﻻ )ٮﻮ( ٮـ]ٯ[ و ٮٯـ‬/ /(‫ ا )ﺣ‬/ / [‫)ﻋ(]ﺪ‬ 20
[‫ )ﻣ(ﺮ ﺻ)ٮـ(ﻪ ]۝‬/ /(‫]ﻪ[ ۝ ا ٮٮﯽ ر ٮﮏ ]ر[ )ﺻ‬/ /‫ا ﻟﻤﻄﻤ‬ 535
/ /‫ ﻣ‬/ / [‫ﻟٮـ]ٯﺲ‬ 21
/ /‫ ﺣٮـ]ﻤ[ﻪ ا ﻟ‬/ /‫ )۝( ه‬//‫ )و ا د( ﺣﻠﯽ ﺣٮٮـ‬/ / [‫ ﻋ]ٮﺪ‬//[‫ ]ٯـ‬/ / 536
‫ا‬ 22
//(‫ ا )ﻟ‬//‫ ا ﻟﻠ‬/ /‫۝ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ٮـ‬ 537
‫ﺮ‬/ / (‫)و( ﻟ]ٮـ[)ﻞ‬ 23
(‫ )ﺣﻞ‬/ / ‫ ا ا ﻟٮـﻠ)ﺪ( ۝ و ا‬/ / 538
[‫]ﻢ‬/ / ‫)ﻢ( ]۝[ ﻻ‬/ / [‫]ﺮ‬// ‫ ا‬/ /[‫]ﺣ‬ 24
// (‫)ﺎ‬/ /(‫ ﺣ)ﻠ‬/ /(‫ )۝ ﻟ‬//(‫ﺎ )و ﻟ‬// [‫ )ﻟ(]ﺪ و‬// [‫ )۝( ]و‬//‫ ﻟ)ٮـ(ﻠ‬// ‫ ا‬//‫ٮـﻬ‬ 25
{} ‫ﻮ ل‬/ / ‫ﺪ‬// ‫ ﻋﻠٮـ]ﻪ[ ا‬/ /‫ ]ا[ ں ﻟﮟ ٮٯـ‬/ /(‫ آ)ٮـ‬//[‫ ]ٯـ‬/ /‫} { ٮـ‬ 26
531
) The traces match ‫ و ا‬as well.
532
) The word following wa- may be a verb, the object of which could be the
pronoun hu referring to al-insān. The penultimate letter of this word may be an
initial ḥā’, a medial ʽayn, or a tooth-shaped letter.
533
) This letter may be fā’ instead.
534
) Perhaps no verse separator was written here, since there is not quite
enough room for the type of two-column separator used in this folio.
535
) This word may be al-āmina, which is reported for Ubayy b. Kaʽb here
(al-Khaṭīb, Muʽjam, 10:432).
536
) It is not clear whether this alif is preceded by fa-.
537
) The text after khātima may be al-fajri wa-layālin ʽashrin.
538
) The traces after ‫ ﻻ‬match ‫ ٯﺴﻢ‬better than ‫اٯﺴﻢ‬. The text may be read as la-
uqsimu or lā uqsimu.
Folio 17 Recto (–)539
{ } 540(‫)ﺎ‬/ / { } 1
{ } / / ‫{ ـﻞ‬ } 2
{ }‫{]۝[ ا ﻻ ﻣ‬ } 3
{ }(‫ﮏ ﻋ)ٯـ‬//{ } 4
Folio 17 Verso (–)
{ }541‫ﺪ‬//‫{ ﻋ‬ } 1
{ } ‫ﻄ‬//(‫ٮٮٮـ]ﻰ[ )ٮـﺴ‬//{
542
} 2
{ } 543
‫ﻄٮ‬//(‫{ )ﺣ‬ } 3
{ }‫{ ﻣﮟ )ﺣ(ٮﻮ‬ } 4
{ } ‫{ ٮٮٮﺎ‬ } 5
Appendix 1: On the Lower Text
The following table identifies readings ascribed to the Companions

and other authorities that match a non-standard reading in the lower
text. The following abbreviations are used: MQ = al-Khaṭīb, Mu‘jam
al-Qirā’āt; KM = Ibn Abī Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif (Beirut: Dār
al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyya, 2002); IM-A = the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd
according to the report of al-A‘mash quoted in KM, 1:302–38.
In the cases of Q 2.96, 9.90, 19.24, and 90.1, the corresponding foot-
notes in the edited text explain how the lower text differs from the stan-
dard one. The variants in Q 2.217, 2.222, and 5.45 have been mentioned
already in Fedeli,“Early Evidences,” 293–316.
539
) Due to the meager amount of text, we have not yet identified the pas-
sage.
540
) The letter before alif may be ḥā’ or a tooth-shaped one.
541
) Either ʽayn and dāl are connected or a tooth-shaped letter is between
them.
542
) This word may be bi-sulṭān or a conjugation of istaṭāʽa.
543
) It is not clear whether ḥā’ and ṭā’ are connected or not.This word may be
ḥabiṭat, aḥāṭat, aḥaṭtu, or khiṭāb, among other things.
116
Sūra.verse, Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi
Folio:line
Lower Text Standard Readings Similar to the Lower Text

Text
2.96, [‫ )ﻋ(ﻠﻰ )ه(]ﺪ‬ʽalā Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ʽalā l-ḥayāti (MQ, 1:156).

2A:28 /(‫ )ﻩ( ]ا ﻟ[)ﺤٮـ‬ḥayātin
(‫ ]ﻩ[ ا ﻟ)ﺪ‬/
//‫ٮٮـ‬
2.96, [‫ ﺣ]ﻪ‬/ /‫ ٮـ‬bi- Ibn Masʽūd: bi-munziḥihi (MQ, 1:156).
2B:1 muzaḥzi-
ḥihi
2.98, (‫ ﻣﮑٮـ)ﻞ‬Mīkāla Ibn Muḥayṣin: Mikayl (MQ, 1:160).This word has
2B:6 been read in many ways, but Ibn Muḥayṣin’s read-
ing is the only one compatible with the rasm in C-1.
2.105, ‫ او ا ﻟﻤﺴﺮ‬wa-lā Al-Aʽmash: wa-lā l-mushrikūna (MQ, 1:169).
2B:26 ‫ )ﮐﻮ( ں‬l-mush-
rikīna
2.217, ‫ ]و[ ﻋ)ﮟ( ٯٮﻞ‬qitālin fīhi Ibn Masʽūd, Ibn ʽAbbās, ʽIkrima, al-Aʽmash, al-
David (‫ٯـ]ٮـ[)ﻪ‬ Rabīʽ: ʽan qitālin fīhi (MQ, 1:298). IM-A: ʽan qitālin
r:25 fīhi (KM, 1:307).
2.222, / { } (‫]ٯـ[)ﻠﺎ‬ fa-ʽtazilū l- Ibn Masʽūd and Anas: wa-lā taqrabū l-nisā’a fī
David ‫ )ٮﻮ( ا ا‬/ nisā’a fī l- maḥīḍihinna wa-ʽtazilūhunna ḥattā yataṭahharna
v:19 ‫ﻟ)ٮـﺴ(ﺎ ٯﯽ‬ maḥīḍi (MQ, 1:308–9).
‫)ﮟ‬//(‫)ﻣﺤٮـﺼ‬ wa-lā
‫ﺣٮـ(ﻰ‬ taqrabū-
[‫ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻄ)ﻬ(]ﺮ‬ hunna
‫ں‬ ḥattā
yaṭhurna
2.222, [‫ ٮـ]ٮـ[ﻄ)ﻬ(]ﺮ‬yaṭhurna The reading yataṭahharna is reported for Ibn
David ‫ں‬ Masʽūd,Anas, and Ubayy b. Kaʽb, while yaṭṭahharna
v:20 is reported for Ḥamza, al-Kisā’ī, ʽĀṣim (via Abū
Bakr and al-Mufaḍḍal), al-Aʽmash, al-Jaḥdarī, Ibn
Muḥayṣin, and Khalaf (MQ, 1:308).
5.45, [‫]ٮٮٮﺎ‬/ / (‫ )و‬wa- Ubayy b. Kaʽb: wa-anzala llāhu ʽalā Banī Isrā’īla
Bonh. ‫ )ﻋ(ﻠﻰ ٮـ)ٮـ(ﻰ ا‬katabnā (MQ, 2:278).
r:13 ‫ ﺳﺮ ٮﻞ‬ʽalayhim
5.48, [‫ ]ﺳﺮ ٮﻌﻪ‬shirʽatan An early Baṣran who apparently hat sharī‘atan in
Bonh. his own copy of the Qur‘ān accused al-Ḥajjāj of
v:4 having “changed”the Qur’ān and written the
synonym shir‘atan instead. On a discussion of the
report about al-Ḥajjāj, see Sadeghi and Berg-
mann, “Codex,”365, footnote 36; cf. MQ, 2:286.
Sūra.verse, Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān 117
Folio:line

Text
5.54, ‫ ]ﻋﻠﻄ[ﺎ‬aʽizzatin Ibn Masʽūd: ghulaẓā’a; al-Māwardī: ghuluẓin (MQ,

Bonh. 2:294)
v:26
8.2, [‫ ٯـ)ﺮ( ٯـ]ٮ‬wajilat Ibn Masʽūd: fariqat; Ubayy b. Kaʽb: faziʽat (MQ,
4B:12 3:258).
9.90, / /[‫ )ا ﻟ(]ﻤ‬al- Ibn Masʽūd and Saʽīd b. Jubayr: al-muʽtadhirūna
20B:22 ‫ ]ر[ و ں‬muʽadh- (MQ, 3:436).
dhirūna
9.126, (‫ )ٮﺮ‬/ / [‫ ا ]و‬a-wa-lā Al-Aʽmash: a-wa-lam taraw/yaraw; Ibn Masʽūd: a-
22A:13 ‫ و‬yarawna wa-lam tara (MQ, 3:482). IM-A: a-wa-lam
tarā/tara (KM, 1:318).
19.19, ‫ ﻟﻨﻬﺐ‬li-ahaba Abū ʽAmr: li-nahaba; Ibn Masʽūd, Ubayy b. Kaʽb,
22B:15 (‫)ﻻهﺐ‬. and several other readers had li-yahaba (MQ,
5:348–9).
19.21, (‫)ﻪ‬//‫ و هﻮ ﻋﻠ‬huwa The reading wa-huwa ʽalayya hayyinun is re-
22B:17 ‫ ه)ٮـ(ﮟ‬ʽalayya ported for al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī for Q 19.9 (MQ,
hayyinun 5:344).
19.23, ‫ ا ﺣﺎ هﺎ‬//(‫ )ٯـﻠﻤ‬fa-ajā’ahā Ubayy b. Kaʽb: fa-lammā ajā’ahā/jā’ahā (MQ,
22B:19 5:350).
19.24, ‫ )ٯـ(ٮـ]ﺪ[ ٮﻬﺎ ﻣﮟ‬fa-nādāhā Ibn ʽAbbās: fa-nādāhā malakun min taḥtihā (MQ,
22B:20 / /‫ ٮـﺤٮـﻬ‬min taḥtihā 5:353).
19.26, (‫ )ﺻ(]ﻮ[ )ﻣﺎ‬ṣawman Anas b. Mālik: ṣawman wa-ṣumtan and ṣawman
22B:24 (‫]و ﺻﻤ[)ٮﺎ‬ ṣumtan; Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ṣawman ṣumtan;Anas,
Ubayy, Ibn Masʽūd, and Abū Razīn al-ʽUqaylī:
ṣumtan (MQ, 5:359).
19.34, ‫ ا ﻟ)ﺪ( ﯼ ﮐﺎ ں‬alladhī fīhi Ubayy b. Kaʽb: alladhī kāna l-nāsu fīhi yamta-
23A:6 { } yamtarūna rūna (MQ, 5:366).
‫ٮﻤٮﺮ و ں‬
19.59, ‫ ا ﻟ]ﺼ[ﻠﻮ ٮ‬al-ṣalāta Ibn Masʽūd, al-Ḥasan,Abū Razīn al-ʽUqaylī, al-
23B:9 Ḍaḥḥāk, and Ibn Miqsam: al-ṣalawāt (MQ, 5:376).
19.63, ‫ ]ٮـ[ﻠﮏ ٮﻮ ر‬tilka l- al-Aʽmash: nūrithuhā instead of nūrithu (MQ,
23B:15 ‫ ٮﻬﺎ‬jannatu 5:378).
llatī nū-
rithu
19.67, ‫ ٮـ)ٮـ(ﺪ ﮐﺮ‬yadhkuru Ubayy b. Kaʽb and Abū l-Mutawakkil: yatadhak-
23B:21 karu; Ibn Kathīr,Abū ʽAmr, Ḥamza, al-Kisā’ī,
Khalaf,Abū Jaʽfar, and Yaʽqūb: yadhdhakkaru
(MQ, 5:382).
118
Folio:line

Text
22.23, [‫]ﻮ‬// ‫ و ﻟﻮ‬wa- Ibn Kathīr,Abū ʽAmr, Ibn ʽĀmir, Ḥamza, al-
7A:19 lu’lu’an Kisā’ī, Ṭalḥa, Ibn Waththāb, al-Aʽmash, Warsh, al-
Ḥasan: wa-lu’lu’in (MQ, 6:97).
22.35, ‫ و ا ﻟﻤٯـ)ٮـ(ﻤٮﮟ‬wa-l- Ibn Masʽūd, al-Aʽmash, and Ibn Muḥayṣin (via
7B:18 (‫ ۝ )ا‬muqīmī l- al-Bazzī): wa-l-muqīmīna l-ṣalāta; wa-l-muqīmīna
‫ ]ﻟﺼﻠﻮ[ ﻩ‬ṣalāti l-ṣalāti is also reported by al-ʽUkbarī (MQ, 6:113).
22.36, ‫ ﺻﻮ )ٯـ(ﮟ‬ṣawāffa Ibn Masʽūd, Ibn ʽAbbās, Ibn ʽUmar, Ibrāhīm,
7B:20 (‫)ﺻﻮاف‬ Qatāda, Mujāhid, ʽAṭā’, al-Ḍaḥḥāk, al-Kalbī, al-
Aʽmash, and Abū Jaʽfar: ṣawāfina (MQ, 6:116).
22.39, / /(‫)ﻠ‬/ / yuqāta- Abū ʽAmr, Ibn Kathīr, ʽĀṣim (via Abū Bakr),
7B:28 ‫ )ں( ]ٯـ[ﻰ‬lūna Ḥamza, al-Kisā’ī, Khalaf, and Yaʽqūb: yuqātilūna
‫ ا‬/ /(‫]ﺳ[)ٮـ‬ (MQ, 6:121).
[‫)ﻟﻠ(]ﻪ‬
18.16, ‫ } {]د[ و ں ا‬illā llāha Ibn Masʽūd: min dūni llāhi, min dūninā (MQ,
32B:2 [‫)ﻟ(]ﻠﻪ‬ 5:161).
16.37, /[‫ ]و[ ا ]ں ٮـﺤ‬in taḥriṣ Al-Nakhaʽī: wa-in taḥraṣ (MQ, 4:627).
13A: ‫ص‬/
24
16.38, (‫ ]و[ )ﻋﺪ‬waʽdan Al-Ḍaḥḥāk: waʽdun (MQ, 4:630).
13B:2
16.44, ‫ ]و[ )ٮﺎ( ﻟﺮ‬wa-l- The reading bi-l-zuburi instead of wa-l-zuburi is
13B: (‫ ٮـ)ﺮ‬zuburi reported in Q 3.184 for the codices of the Shām
10 and the following readers: Ibn ʽAbbās, Ibn ʽĀmir,
Ibn Dhakwān, Hishām, and al-Ḥulwāni (MQ,
1:638).
33.51, ‫ ٮـ)ﻤﺎ( ا و‬bi-mā Ibn Masʽūd: bi-mā ūtīna (MQ, 7:304). IM-A: bi-mā
9A:4 ‫ )ٮٮـ(ﮟ‬ātayta- ūtīna (KM, 1:330).
hunna
33.53, ‫ ٮﺴٮﺤٮﯽ‬yastaḥyī The majority have read yastaḥyī, which is com-
9A:13 (‫)ﻳﺴﺘﺤﯽ‬ patible with the lower text’s spelling, and is con-
sidered a Ḥijāzī pronunciation (lugha), whereas
Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Muḥayṣin,Yaʽqūb and Mujāhid
have read yastaḥī, which is considered a Tamīmī
way of reading this word (MQ, 1:67; 7:310).
Folio:line

Text
33.67, ‫ﻞ‬/ /[‫ )ﻟ(]ﺴ‬/ / al-sabīlā Ibn Masʽūd reportedly had ‫ اﻟﺴﺒﻴﻞ‬here, ‫ اﻟﻈﻨﻮن‬in
9B:18 verse 10 and ‫ اﻟﺮﺳﻮل‬in verse 66 (MQ, 7:257).The
following Kūfan and Baṣran readers also report-
edly did not pronounce the final alif either in
waqf or waṣl for verses 10, 66, and 67: Ḥamza,
Abū ʽAmr, al-Jaḥdarī,Yaʽqūb, and al-Aʽmash
(MQ, 7:256). IM-A: al-rasūla (KM, 1:330).
20.31, / (‫]و ا ﺳ[)ﺮ‬ ushdud Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ashrikhu fī amrī ‫ ۝‬wa-shdud bihi
15A:4 ‫ ]ٯـ[)ﻰ( ا‬/ bihi azrī azrī (MQ, 5:430).
‫]ﻣ[)ﺮ( ﯼ ۝‬ ‫ ۝‬wa-ash-
/ /[‫)و( ا ]ﺳ‬ rikhu fī
‫]ٮﻪ[ ا ر ر ﯼ‬ amrī
(‫)۝‬
20.40, // (‫ )ٯﺮ د‬fa- Ubayy b. Kaʽb: fa-radadnāka (MQ, 5:434).
15A:10 (‫ ]ٮـ[)ﮏ‬rajaʽnāka
20.63, ‫ )ﻣ(ﺎ د ا ں ا ﻻ‬in hādhāni Ubayy b. Kaʽb: mā hādhāni/hādhā illā sāḥirāni, in
15B:3 (‫ )ﺳﺤﺮ ں‬la-sāḥirāni dhāni/hādhāni illā sāḥirāni, in dhāni la-sāḥirāni;
Ibn Masʽūd: in dhāni/hādhāni illā sāḥirāni, an
hādhāni illā sāḥirāni, inna dhayni/dhāni la-
sāḥirāni (MQ, 5:452–3).
20.63, (‫)و( ٮﺪ ه)ٮﺎ‬ wa- Ibn Masʽūd, Ubayy b. Kaʽb,Abdallāh b. ʽAmr,Abū
15B:3 ‫ﻣٮـ]ﮑ[)ﻢ ٮـ(ﺎ‬ yadhhabā Rajā’ al-ʽUṭāridī: wa-yadhhabā bi-l-ṭarīqati
‫ﻟ]ﻄ[)ﺮ‬ bi-ṭarī- (MQ, 5:453).
[‫ٮٯـ(]ﻪ‬ qatikumu
l-muthlā
20.128, /(‫ ا و )ﻟﻢ( ٮـ)ﻬ‬a-fa-lam Ibn Masʽūd: a-wa-lam yahdi (MQ, 5:512).
30B:8 / yahdi
24.27, ‫ ﺤ]ٮـ[ﺎ ٮﺴﻠﻤﻮ ا‬ḥattā Ibn ʽAbbās and Ibn Masʽūd: ḥattā tusallimū/yusa-
11A:8 ‫ ﻋﻠﯽ ا هﻠ]ﻪ[ و‬tasta’nisū llimū ʽalā ahlihā wa-tasta’dhinū/wa-yasta’dhinū;
‫ ٮـﺴ)ٮـﺪ( ٮـﻮ ا‬wa-tusal- Ibn ʽAbbās and Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ḥattā tusallimū
limū ʽalā aw tasta’nisū; Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ḥattā yusallimū
ahlihā wa-yasta’dhinū, ḥattā tasta’dhinū lakum. In addi-
tion to Ibn ʽAbbās, Ibn Masʽūd, and Ubayy b.
Kaʽb, the readers al-Aʽmash and Saʽīd b. Jubayr
also reportedly had tasta’dhinū instead of
tasta’nisū. Ibn ʽAbbās reportedly said that
tasta’nisū was the result of a scribal error
(MQ, 6:252–4).
120
Folio:line

Text
24.31, (‫ ﻣﺎ ﺤ]ٯـ[)ﻰ‬mā yukh- Ibn Masʽūd: mā surra min zīnatihinna

11A:25 ‫ ﻤﮟ ر‬fīna min (MQ, 6:259).
‫ )ٮـٮـٮـ(ﻬﮟ‬zīnati-
hinna
24.31, ‫ ا ٮﻬﺎ‬ayyuha Abū ʽAmr, al-Kisā’ī, and Yaʽqūb: ayyuhā
11A:26 (MQ, 6:260).
34.14, /{ } fa-lammā Ibn Masʽūd reportedly had wa-hum yad’abūna
33A:5 ‫ ]ا[ ٮـ]ﻌ[ﻤﻠﻮ‬/ kharra lahu ḥawlan in addition to the standard text.Al-
[‫ں ﻟ)ﻪ( ]ﺣﻮ‬ tabayya- Ṭabarī gives the following reading for Ibn Masʽūd:
‫ﺎ‬//[‫ﻻ )ٯـ(]ﻠ‬ nati fa-makathū yad’abūna lahu min baʽdi mawtihi
(‫ﺣ)ﺮ‬ l-jinnu ḥawlan kāmilan (Jāmiʽ al-bayān, 19:242).The
‫ ا‬//[‫ٮـ)ٮـ(ٮـ]ٮـ‬ following reading featuring ḥawlan is also re-
‫ﻟ)ﺤ(ﮟ‬ ported for Ibn Masʽūd, Ibn ʽAbbās, and Ibn Shan-
nabūdh: tabayyanati l-insu anna l-jinna law kānū
yaʽlamūna l-ghayba mā labithū ḥawlan
(MQ, 7:350).
34.24, [‫ )ا ٮـ(ﺎ ]و‬// wa-innā Ubayy b. Kaʽb: wa-innā aw/wa iyyākum la-immā
33B:3 ‫]ﮑ[)ﻢ‬// (‫)ا‬ aw iyyā- ʽalā hudan; wa-innā aw iyyākum immā ʽalā hudan
} [‫ﻻ( ]ﻣﺎ‬ kum laʽalā (MQ, 7:370–1).
(‫ )ﯼ‬//{ hudan
13.11, [‫]ٮ‬/ /[‫ )ﻣ(]ﻌ‬muʽaqqi- Ibn ʽAbbās,Abū ʽAbdallāh: muʽaqqibātun min
35A:8 }/ / bātun min khalfihi wa-raqībun min bayni yadayhi; Ibn
‫ { ٮـ)ﺪ ٮـ(ﻪ‬bayni ʽAbbās and Ubayy b. Kaʽb: muʽaqqibātun min
yadayhi bayni yadayhi wa-raqībun min khalfihi. Ibn
wa-min ʽAbbās: muʽaqqibātun min bayni yadayhi
khalfihi wa-ruqabā’u min khalfihi (MQ, 4:394).
37.25, / / (‫ ٮٮٮﺼﺮ )و‬tanāṣa- Ibn Masʽūd and Khālid: tatanāṣarūna
28A:9 rūna (MQ, 8:20).
37.56, ‫ ﻟ)ٮـﻌ(ﻮ ٮﮟ‬la-turdīni Ibn Masʽūd: la-tughwīni (MQ, 8:31).
28B:8
15.54, ‫ﻰ‬// ‫ ٮﺴﺮ ٮﻤﻮ‬a-bash- Al-Aʽmash and al-Aʽraj: bashshartumūnī
18B:15 shartu- (MQ, 4:562).
mūnī
Folio:line

Text
15.66, ‫)و( ٯـ]ﺼٮـ[ٮﺎ‬ wa-qaḍay- Ibn Masʽūd: wa-qaḍaynā ilayhi dhālika l-amra
18B: ‫ا ﻟٮﻪ ]ﺪ[ ﻟﮏ ا‬ nā ilayhi wa-qulnā lahu inna dābira hā’ulā’i maqṭūʽun
24 ‫ﻻ ﻣﺮ و ا ں د‬ dhālika (MQ, 4:573).
‫ٮﺮ هﻮ ﻻ‬ l-amra
‫ﻣٯـ]ﻄ[ﻮ ع‬ anna
dābira
hā’ulā’i
maqṭūʽun
15.72, [‫ )ﺳ(]ﮑﺮ‬sakratihim Al-Aʽmash: sukrihim (MQ, 4:577).
18B: (‫ه)ﻢ‬
28
25.19, ‫ } { ں ﻟﮏ‬fa-mā Ibn Masʽūd: fa-mā yastaṭīʽūna laka/lakum; Ubayy
19A:8 ‫ ﺻﺮ ٯﺎ‬tastaṭīʽūna b. Kaʽb: fa-mā/fa-lā yastaṭīʽūna laka; al-Aʽmash:
ṣarfan fa-mā yastaṭīʽūna lakum (MQ, 6:334).
25.25, ‫ ٮﺮ ﻟٮ ا‬nuzzila Ubayy b. Kaʽb: nazalati/nuzzilati/tanazzalati/
19A: ‫ ﻟﻤﻠٮﮑﻪ‬l-malā’i- tunazzalu/tatanazzalu l-malā’ikatu; Ibn Masʽūd:
19 katu nazalati l-malā’ikatu;Abū ʽAmr: tanazzalu/
tunazzilu l-malā’ikatu (MQ, 6:342–4).
30.43, ‫{ا‬ } fa-aqim Ubayy b. Kaʽb reportedly had awjuhakum instead
24B: (‫ و )ﺣ(ﻬ)ﮑﻢ‬wajhaka of wujūhakum in Q 4.43 (MQ, 2:81).
12
30.49, (‫ } {)ﻢ‬ʽalayhim Ibn Masʽūd: ʽalayhim la-mublisīna
24B:25 ‫ﮟ‬//‫)ﻠ(ﺴ‬//[‫ ﻟ]ﻤ‬min (MQ, 7:170).
qablihi
la-mubli-
sīna
63.7, (‫ ﺣٮـ)ﺎ‬ḥattā The phrase ḥattā yanfaḍḍū min ḥawlihi appears
Chris. ‫ ٮٮـ]ٯـ[ﺼ]ﻮ[ ا‬yanfaḍḍū in a report about the sha’n al-nuzūl of this verse,
v:11 ‫ﻣﮟ ﺣ)ﻮ( ]ﻟ[ﻪ‬ and is ascribed to Ibn Masʽūd and Zayd b. Arqam.
Ibn Ḥajar questions the ascription to Ibn
Masʽūd’s codex (MQ, 9:474–5).
63.10, ‫ ٯـ]ﺎ ٮﺼﺪ[ ٯ‬fa-aṣṣad- Ibn Masʽūd, Ubayy b. Kaʽb, and Saʽīd b. Jubayr:
Chris. daqa fa-ataṣaddaqu (MQ, 9:478).
v:17
63.10, [‫ ]ں‬//[‫ و ]ا آ‬wa-akun The reading wa-akūna is reported for Ibn Masʽūd,
Chris. Ubayy b. Kaʽb, and all the readers except for Ibn
v:17 Kathīr, Nāfiʽ, Ibn ʽĀmir, ʽĀṣim, Ḥamza, and al-
Kisā’ī. ʽUbayd b. ʽUmayr: wa-akūnu (MQ, 9:479–80).
122
Folio:line

Text
89.27, ‫ ]ٮـ[ﺎ )ٮـ(ﻬﺎ‬yā ay- Zayd b. ʽAlī: yā ayyuhā (MQ, 10:431).

Chris. yatuhā
v:20
89.27, / / [‫ ا ﻟٮـ]ٯﺲ‬al-nafsu Ubayy b. Kaʽb: al-nafsu l-āminatu l-muṭma’in-
Chris. /‫ ا ﻟﻤﻄﻤ‬/ /‫ ﻣ‬l-muṭma- natu, al-āminatu l-muṭma’innatu (MQ, 10:432).
v:20 [‫]ﻪ‬/ ’innatu
89.28, ‫ ا ٮٮﯽ ر ٮﮏ‬irjiʽī ilā Ubayy b. Kaʽb: ītī rabbaki (MQ, 10:433).
Chris. rabbiki
r:21
90.1, [‫]ﻢ‬/ / ‫ ﻻ‬lā uqsimu Ibn Kathīr, al-Ḥasan, al-Aʽmash, ʽIkrima, Mujā-
Chris. hid,Abū ʽImrān,Abū l-ʽĀliya: la-uqsimu (MQ,
r:24 10:437).
Appendix 2: On the Upper Text
At a number of points, the upper text differs with every codex described
in the literary sources in adding or omitting a verse division. Its unique
additions are as follows: Q 2.267 (tunfiqūna), 2.285 (wa-l-mu’minūna), 6.157
(yaṣdifūna), 32.22 (al-mujrimīna), 33.35 (wa-l-ṣābirīna). The last two end-
ings might be scribal errors. Its unique omissions are as follows: Q 33.4,
55.44, 55.46, 55.47, 55.48, 56.41, 56.43.The four omissions in sūra 55 all occur
in folio 33A, lines 17–8. These two lines are much more compact than usual
and contain no visible verse endings. It seems the scribe initially forgot to
write part of the text, and thus later deleted these two lines and rewrote the
text compactly so as to make it fit. The verse endings may have been omit-
ted to save space.
The following table gives the disputed verse divisions in the upper
text based on the works by al-Dānī and Spitaler (for which see the
Bibliography). When there are different reports about a city, Spitaler
labels them (a), (b), (c), etc. We imitate him. We use the following abbre-
viations:Y = there is a verse division; N = there is no verse division; M =
Medina; C = Mecca; K = Kūfa; B = Baṣra; D = Damascus; Ḥ = Ḥimṣ.
Up.Text
Disputed Verse Division Cities like the Upper Text Cities unlike the
Upper Text
2.282 (wa-lā shahīdun) N M, K, B, C (a), D, Ḥ C (b)

4.44 (al-sabīla) N B, C, M K, D, Ḥ
5.1 (al-ʽuqūdi) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
6.66 (bi-wakīlin) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
6.73 (fa-yakūnu) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
6.161 (mustaqīmin) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
7.1 (ALMṢ) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
14.33 (wa-l-nahāra) Y K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ B
19.41 (Ibrāhīma) Y C, M2 K, B, M1, D, Ḥ
19.75 (maddan) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
20.1 (ṬH) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
20.33 (kathīran) Y K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ B
20.34 (kathīran) Y K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ B
20.39 (fī l-yammi) N K, B, C, M1, M2, D Ḥ
20.39 (minnī) Y C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K, B
20.40 (taḥzana) N K, B, C, M1, M2, Ḥ (a) D, Ḥ (c)
20.40 (futūnan) N K, C, M1, M2 B, D, Ḥ
20.40 (madyana) N K, B, C, M1, M2, Ḥ (a) D, Ḥ (c)
20.41 (li-nafsī) N B, C, M1, M2 K, D, Ḥ
20.77 (Mūsā) N K, B, C, M1, M2, Ḥ (a, c) D, Ḥ (e)
20.78 (mā ghashiya- N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
hum)
20.86 (asifan) Y C, M1, Ḥ K, B, M2, D
20.86 (ḥasanan) N K, B, C, M1, D (a, b, c), Ḥ M2, D (d), Ḥ (e)
(a, c)
20.87 (al-Sāmiriyyu) Y K, B, C, M1, D (a, b), Ḥ (a, c) M2, D (c, d), Ḥ (b, d, e)
20.88 (Mūsā) N K, B, M2, D, Ḥ C, M1
20.88 (fa-nasiya) Y K, B, M2, D, Ḥ C, M1
20.89 (qawlan) N K, B, C, M1, D (a, d), Ḥ (a, c, M2, D (b, c), Ḥ (b, d)
e)
20.92 (ḍallū) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
20.95 (Sāmiriyyu) Y K, B, C, M1, M2, D (a, c, d), Ḥ D (b) and Ḥ (b)
(a, c, e)
20.106 (ṣafṣafan) N C, M1, M2 K, B, D, Ḥ
20.123 (hudan) Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ (b) K, Ḥ (a, c, e)
Up.Text
Disputed Verse Division Cities like the Upper Text Cities unlike the
Upper Text
20.124 (ḍankan) N K, B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ (e) Ḥ (a, b, c)

21.66 (yaḍurrukum) N B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
29.29 (al-sabīla) Y C, M1, M2, Ḥ K, B, D
35.7 (shadīdun) N K, C, M1, M2 B, D, Ḥ
55.35 (nārin) N K, B, D, Ḥ C, M1, M2
55.43 (al-mujrimūna) N B K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ
56.8 (fa-aṣḥābu Y B, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ K
l-maymanati)
56.15 (mawḍūnatin) Y K, C, M1, M2, Ḥ (a) B, D, Ḥ (b)
56.18 (wa-abārīqa) Y C, M2 K, B, M1, D, Ḥ
56.22 (ʽīnun) N B, C, M2, D, Ḥ K, M1
56.25 (ta’thīman) N C, M1 K, B, M2, D, Ḥ
56.27 (wa-aṣḥābu Y B, C, M1, D, Ḥ K, M2
l-yamīni)
56.35 (inshā’an) Y K, C, M1, M2, D, Ḥ B
56.47 (yaqūlūna) N K, B, M1, M2, D C, Ḥ
56.48 (al-awwalūna) Y K, B, C, M1, M2, D Ḥ
56.49 (wa-l-ākhirīna) N M2, D, Ḥ K, B, C, M1
56.50 (la-majmūʽūna) N K, B, C, M1 M2, D, Ḥ
The upper text has a number of unique skeletal-morphemic features.

It has ‫ اﻟﺴﻨﺎﺗﮑﻢ‬instead of ‫( اﻟﺴﻨﺘﮑﻢ‬Q 16.116), ‫ ﻣﻮﻋﺪﺗﯽ‬instead of ‫( ﻣﻮﻋﺪﯼ‬Q
20.86), and ‫ ﻟﺒﺜﻮا‬instead of ‫( ﺗﻠﺒﺜﻮا‬Q 33.14). There are also a number of
unique morphemic (pointing) features, such as nadhra’ukum in Q 42.11.
There are also skeletal-morphemic features that match some cities but
not others.These are given in the following table:
Disputed Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān 125
Point
Upper Text Cities like Upper Cities unlike Upper Text

Text
6.63 anjaytanā (‫)اﻧﺤﻴﺘﻨﺎ‬ All the other Kūfa: anjānā (‫)اﻧﺠٮﻨﺎ‬

cities
7.3 tadhakkarūna All the other Shām: yatadhakkarūna
(‫)ٮﺪﮐﺮوں‬ cities (‫)ﻳﺘﺬﮐﺮون‬
25.25 wa-nuzzila (‫)و ﻧﺮل‬ All the other Mecca: wa-nunazzilu (‫)وﻧﻨﺰل‬
cities
43.68 ‫ٮﻌٮﺎدﯼ‬, but the final Medina, Shām Kūfa, Baṣra, and maybe
yā’ looks like a later Mecca: yā ʽibādi (‫)ﻳﻌﺒﺎد‬
addition
47.18 an ta’tiyahum ( ‫ان‬ Mecca, and All the other cities: in
‫)ﺗﺎﺗﻴﻬﻢ‬ maybe Kūfa ta’tihim (‫)ان ﺗﺎﺗﻬﻢ‬
55.78 dhī l-jalāli (‫)دﯼ اﻟﺤﻠﻞ‬ All the other Shām: dhū l-jalāli (‫)ذو اﻟﺠﻠﻞ‬
cities
Bibliography
‘Abd al-‘Azīz ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ al-Qāri’. Ḥadīth al-aḥruf al-sab‘a: dirāsa

li-isnādih wa-matnih wa-ikhtilāf al-‘ulamā’ fī ma‘nāh wa-ṣilatih bi-l-qirā’āt
al-Qur’āniyya. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risāla li-l-Ṭibā‘a wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzī‘,
1423/2002.
Abū Dāwūd, Sulaymān b. al-Ash‘ath al-Sijistānī. Sunan Abī Dāwūd. 2 vols.
Edited by Sa‘īd Muḥammad al-Laḥḥām. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1410/1990.
Anonymous,“‘The Qur’an: Text, Interpretation and Translation’ 3rd Biannual
SOAS Conference, October 16–17, 2003,” Journal of Qurʾanic Studies 6.1
(2003): 143–5.
Atiya, Aziz S. “The Monastery of St. Catherine and the Mount Sinai Expedi-
tion.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96.5 (1952): 578–86.
Atiya, Aziz S. Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai: A Hand-list of the Arabic
Manuscripts and Scrolls Microfilmed at the Library of the Monastery of
St. Catherine, Mount Sinai. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1955.
nd
A‘ ẓamī, Muḥammad Muṣṭafā al-, The History of the Qur’ānic Text, 2 ed.
Riyadh: Azami Publishing House, 2008.
Bothmer, Hans-Caspar Graf von. “Die Anfänge der Koranschreibung: Kodi-
kologische und kunsthistorische Beobachtungen an den Koranfragmenten in
Sanaa,” Magazin Forschung (Universität des Saarlandes), 1 (1999): 40–6.
Brettar, Claudia.“UdS: Neues Zentrum für Koranforschung? Teil 1.” Campus
29.3 (July 1999), http://www.uni-saarland.de/verwalt/presse/campus/1999/
3/20-UdS_neues_zentrum.html.
Burton, John. The Collection of the Qur’ān. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1977.
Cook, Michael. “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Koran.” Graeco-
Arabica 9–10 (2004): 89–104.
Cook, Michael.“A Koranic Codex Inherited by Mālik from his Grandfather.” In
Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Graeco-Oriental and Afri-
can Studies, Graeco-Arabica. Edited by Vassilios Christides and Theodore
Papadopoullos, VII–VIII, Nicosia, 7–8 (1999–2000): 93–105.
Crone, Patricia and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Crone, Patricia. “Two Legal Problems Bearing on the Early History of the
Qur’ān.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 18 (1994): 1–37.
Crone, Patricia. “What do we Actually Know about Mohmammed?” open-
Democracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed
_3866.jsp).
Dānī, Abū ‘Amr ‘Uthmān b. Sa‘īd al-. Al-Bayān fī ‘add āy al-Qurʾān. Kuwait: Dār
al-Nashr, 1414/1994.
Declercq, Georges. “Introduction: Codices Rescripti in the Early Medieval
West in Early Medieval Palimpsests.” In Early Medieval Palimpsests. Edited
by Georges Declercq, 7–22.Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers, 2007.
Dreibholz, Ursula.“Preserving a Treasure: The Sana’a Manuscripts.” Museum
International (UNESCO, Paris), No. 203 (Vol. 51, No. 3, 1999): 21–5.
Dreibholz, Ursula. “Treatment of Early Islamic Manuscript Fragments on
Parchment.” In The Conservation and Preservation of Islamic Manuscripts,
Proceedings of the Third Conference of al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Founda-
tion. Edited by Yusuf Ibish and George Atiyeh, 131–45. London: al-Furqān
Islamic Heritage Foundation, 1417/1996.
Fedeli, Alba.“Early Evidences of Variant Readings in Qur’ānic Manuscripts.”
In Die dunklen Anfänge: Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen Ge-
schichte des Islam, edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, 293–
316. Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler, 2007.
Fedeli, Alba. “Mingana and the Manuscript of Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis, One
Century Later.” Manuscripta Orientalia 11.3 (2005): 3–7.
Fedeli, Alba. “I Manoscritti di Sanaa: Fogli Sparsi che Diventano Corani.”
Quaderni di Acme 101 (2008): 25–48.
Fedeli, Alba. “A.Perg.2: A Non Palimpsest and the Corrections in Qur’ānic
Manuscripts.” Manuscripta Orientalia 11.1 (2005): 20–7.
Fedeli, Alba.“The Digitization Project of the Qur’ānic Palimpsest, MS Cam-
bridge University Library Or. 1287, and the Verification of the Mingana-
Lewis Edition: Where is Salām?” Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 2.1 (2011):
100–117.
Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, Muḥammad b.‘Abd Allāh b. Ḥamdūya al-. Al-Mustadrak. 4 vols.
Edited by Yūsuf‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Mar‘ashlī, Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa (n.d.).
Higg ins, Andrew.“The Lost Archive.” The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2008.
Ibn Abī Dāwūd. Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif. 5 vols. 2nd ed. Edited by Muḥibb al-Dīn Wā‘iẓ.
Beirut: Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyya, 1423/2002.
Ibn Abī Shayba, Abū Bakr ‘Abd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. ‘Uthmān.
Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shayba fī al-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār. Edited by Sa‘īd al-Laḥḥām.

8 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1409/1989.
Ibn ‘Asākir, Abū l-Qasim ‘Alī b. al-Ḥasan b. Hibat Allāh. Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq.
70 vols. Edited by ‘Alī Shīrī. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1415/1995.
Ibn al-Jazarī, Abū al-Khayr Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Dimashqī. Al-nashr fī
al-qirā’āt al-‘ashr. 2 vols. Edited by ‘Alī Muḥammad al-Ḍabbā‘. Beirut: Dār
al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya. (n.d.).
Ibn al-Nadīm, Abū l-Faraj Muḥammad b. Abī Ya‘qūb Isḥāq, Kitāb al-Fihrist.
Edited by Riḍā Tajaddud (n.p. and n.d.).
Ibn Sa‘d, Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad. Al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā. 8 vols. Beirut: Dār
Ṣādir, 1968.
Khaṭīb,‘Abd al-Laṭīf Muḥammad al-. Mu‘jam al-qirā’āt. 11 vols. Damascus: Dār
Sa‘d al-Dīn, 1422/2002.
Krekel, Christoph.“The Chemistry of Historical Iron Gall Inks.” International
Journal of Forensic Document Examiners 5 (1999): 54–8.
Kristof, Nicholas.“Martyrs, Virgins, and Grapes.” The New York Times, August
4, 2004.
Kristof, Nicholas.“Islam, Virgins, and Grapes.” The New York Times, April 22,
2009.
nd
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2 ed. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1970.
Kulaynī, Muḥammad b. Ya‘qūb al-. al-Kāfī, 4th ed. 8 vols. Tehran: Dār al-Kutub
al-Islāmiyya, HS 1365.
Lester,Toby.“What is the Koran?” The Atlantic Monthly, January 1999, 43–56.
Mas‘ūdī, Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Alī al-. Murūj al-dhahab wa-ma‘ādin
al-jawhar. Second printing, edited by Yūsuf As‘ad Dāghir. Qum: Dār al-Hijra,
1409.
Mingana, Alphonse and Agnes S. Lewis. Leaves from Three Ancient Qurâns,
Possibly Pre-‘Othmânic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914.
Modarressi, Hossein.“Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qur’ān: A Brief
Survey.” Studia Islamica 77 (1993): 5–39.
Motzki, Harald. “The Collection of the Qurʾān: A Reconsideration of Western
Views in Light of Recent Methodological Developments.” Der Islam 78
(2001): 1–34.
Muḥaysin, Muḥammad Sālim. Al-Fatḥ al-rabbānī fī ‘alāqat al-qirā’āt bi-l-rasm al-
‘Uthmānī. Saudi Arabia: Jāmi‘at al-Imām Muḥammad b. Sa‘ūd al-Islāmiyya,
1415/1994.
Muqātil b. Sulaymān. Tafsīr. 3 vols. Edited by Aḥmad Farīd. Beirut: Dār al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1424/2003.
Nasā’ī, Aḥmad b.‘Alī b. Shu‘ayb al-. Al-Sunan al-kubrā. 6 vols. Edited by ‘Abd al-
Ghaffār Sulaymān al-Bandārī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1411/1991.
Noseda, Sergio.“La Mia Visita a Sanaa e il Corano Palinsesto.” Istituto Lombar-
do (Rendiconti Lett.) 137 (2003): 43–60.
Popkin, Richard. “Scepticism, Theology and the Scientific Revolution in the
Seventeenth Century.” In Problems in the Philosophy of Science: Proceedings
of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965,

volume 3, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 1–28. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing, 1968.
Powers, David. Muḥammad is not the Father of any of Your Men: The Making of
the Last Prophet. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
Prémare, Alfred-Louis de.“‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān et le Processus de Consti-
tution du Coran.” In Die dunklen Anfänge: Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung
und frühen Geschichte des Islam, edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-
Rüdiger Puin, 179–210. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2007.
Prémare, Alfred-Louis de. Les fondations de l’islam: Entre écriture et histoire.
Paris: Le Seuil, 2002.
Puin, Elisabeth. “Ein früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1).” In
Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, edited by Markus
Groß and Karl-Heinz Ohlig, 461–93. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008.
Puin, Elisabeth.“Ein früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1) – Teil
II.” In Vom Koran zum Islam, edited by Markus Groß and Karl-Heinz Ohlig,
523–81. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2009.
Puin, Elisabeth.“Ein früher Koranpalimpsest aus Ṣan‘ā’ (DAM 01–27.1) – Teil
III: Ein nicht-‘uṯmānischer Koran.” In Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion I:
Von der koranischen Bewegung zum Frühislam, edited by Markus Groß and
Karl-Heinz Ohlig, 233–305. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2010.
Puin, Gerd-Rüdiger.“Observations on Early Qur’ān Manuscripts in Ṣan‘ā’.” In
The Qur’ān as Text, edited by Stefan Wild, 107–111. Leiden and New York:
E.J. Brill, 1996.
Puin, Gerd-Rüdiger. “Über die Bedeutung der ältesten Koranfragmente aus
Sanaa (Jemen) für die Orthographiegeschichte des Korans.” Magazin For-
schung, Universität des Saarlandes 1 (1999): 37–40, 46.
Puin, Gerd-Rüdiger.“Die Utopie einer kritischen Koranedition.” In Schlaglich-
ter: Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, edited by Markus Groß and
Karl-Heinz Ohlig, 516–71. Berlin: Hans Schiler, 2008.
Rāmyār, Maḥmūd. Tārīkh-i Qur’ān, 2nd ed.Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, HS 1362/1983.
Sadeg hi, Behnam.“The Traveling Tradition Test: A Method for Dating Tradi-
tions.” Der Islam 85.1 (2008): 203–42.
Sadeg hi, Behnam, and Uwe B ergmann.“The Codex of a Companion of the
Prophet and the Qur’ān of the Prophet.” Arabica 57.4 (2010): 343–436.
Sadeg hi, Behnam.“The Chronology of the Qur’ān: A Stylometric Research
Program.” Arabica 58.4 (2011): 210–99.
Sadeg hi, Behnam.“Criteria for Emending the Text of the Qur’ān.” In Law and
Tradition in Classical Islamic Thought, edited by Michael Cook, et al. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming 2012.
Sinai, Nicolai. “The Qur’ān as Process.” In The Qur’ān in Context: Historical
and Literary Investigations into the Qur’ānic Milieu, edited by Angelika
Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and Michael Marx, 407–40. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Spitaler, Anton. Die Verszählung des Koran nach islamischer Überlieferung.
Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1935.
Stefanidis, Emmanuelle.“The Qur’an Made Linear: A Study of the Geschichte

des Qorâns’ Chronological Reordering,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 10.2
(2008): 1–22.
Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-. Al-Durr al-manthūr fī al-
tafsīr bi-l-ma’thūr. 6 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘rifa li-l-Ṭibā‘a wa-l-Nashr, 1979.
Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-. Al-Itqān fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān.
2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1416/1996.
Ṭabarī, Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-. Jāmi‘ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy
al-Qur’ān. 30 vols. Edited by Ṣidqī Jamīl al-‘Aṭṭār. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr
li-l-Ṭibā‘a wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzī‘, 1415/1995.
Talbi, M.“La qirā’a bi-l-alḥān.” Arabica 5 (1958): 183–90.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2001.
Wansbroug h, John. Qur’ānic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural In-
terpretation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.

Sadeghi Goudarzi Sana Origins of The Quran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sadeghi Goudarzi Sana Origins of The Quran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān

Der Islam Bd. 87, S. 1–129 DOI 10.1515/islam-2011-0025

The Manuscript and the Field of Qur’ānic Studies

Scholarly approaches to the early history of the standard text of the

It is convenient to call the adherents of this account “traditionalists.”

bearing on Islamic origins. But they do not subscribe to the theories of

In Ṣan‘ā’ 1, as with some other palimpsests, over time the residue of

Prophet Muḥammad’s death in AD 632, since it contains the ninth sūra,

2008, four folios from the palimpsest were auctioned in London. It is

an article in Italian that mentions the 01-27.1 folios.24 An extended

word in a manuscript is spelled differently than it is in her Saudi Qur’ān, she

Elisabeth Puin worked with inferior,“small and 6 × 6 photographs in

Textual-Critical and Historical Implications

Before the advent of the printing press, book manuscripts formed

important ramifications: the splitting off of the ‘Uthmānic and other

of them in the literary sources. According to these accounts, some

Table 1. Examples of Major Variants

ces and free-standing copies of sūras) in which preference was usually

C-1 Ibn Mas‘ūd Ubayy b. Ka‘b

the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,” a formula found at

Early traditions preserve a wide spectrum of attitudes towards the codi-

bly a sacrilege. Another version of al-Ḥajjāj’s speech transmitted through a

The Media and Manuscripts

As much as we would like to disregard the media, it is difficult to do

Yemeni authorities have seemed reluctant to allow.”69 A more forward

corresponding to the second ī in Ibrāhīm and the ay in Shayṭān were originally

A Note on the Edition

Table 3. The Folios of Ṣan‘ā’ 1

Name Lower Text Upper Text Surviving

31A 12.17–12.20 43.63–43.69 less than ¼

18B 15.33–15.74 28.74–28.86

The order in which we transcribe the folios in our edition is given in

Symbols and Conventions

‫‪The Lower Text of Ṣan‘ā’ 1‬‬

‫و ا د ا ‪)//‬ٮٮـ(ﺎ ﻣﻮ ﺳﯽ ا ﻟﮑٮٮ و ٯٯٮـ]ٮـ[ﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ )ا( ٮﺮ } {‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ﻣﮟ ا ﻟ]ﻌ[)ﺪ( ا ٮ ا ں ٮـ)ﻌ(ﻤر و ﻣﺎ‬ 85

‫ )ه(ﺮ و ٮ‬/ / [‫]ﺎ‬/ / ‫ﮟ‬/ /‫ ا )ﻟ(ﻤﻠ‬93/ /‫ںا‬ 14

‫} {]ﺪ[ ]ٮـ[ﮟ ﮐٯﺮ و ]ا ﻣﮟ[ ا هﻞ ا ﻟﮑٮٮ ا و ا ﻟﻤﺴﺮ‬ ‫‪26‬‬

‫)‪Folio Stanford 2007 Recto (Q 2.191 – 2.196‬‬

‫و )ا( ٯـﺘﻠ]ﻮ[ هﻢ ‪) / /‬ٮـ(‪]/ /‬ٮـ[ﻤﻮ هﻢ و ا ﺣﺮ ﺣﻮ ‪{ } / /‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ٮﻀﺎ او ٮﻪ ا ذ ﯼ ﻣﮟ ر )ا( ﺳﻪ ٯﺪ ٮﻪ‬ ‫‪19‬‬

‫)‪Folio Stanford 2007 Verso (Q 2.197 – 2.205‬‬

‫ﮐﺮ ‪ / /‬ا ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٯﯽ ا ]ٮـ[ﻢ ﻣﻌﺪ و د ٮ ٯﻤﮟ ٮﻌﺤﻞ ٯﯽ‬ ‫‪17‬‬

‫)‪Folio David 86/2003 Recto (Q 2.206 – 2.217‬‬

‫ ﻟﺮ ﻟ)ﻮ( ا ﺣﺘﯽ )ٮـٯـ(]ﻮ[ ل ا ﻟﺮ‬// ‫ ا و‬//‫]ٯٮـ[ﻠﮑ)ﻢ ﻣﺴٮﻬﻢ( ا ﻟٮﺴﺎ و ا ﻟﺼ‬ 18

Folio David 86/2003 Verso (Q 2.217 – 2.223)

‫‪ 125/‬ا و ﻟ‪]//‬ﮏ[ ا ﺻﺤٮ‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬

Folio Bonhams 2000 Recto (Q 5.41 – 5.48)

‫‪/‬‬ ‫هﻢ ا ﻟــ)ﻄ(ﻠﻤ)ﻮ(‪ 139‬ں ۝ و ٯٯٮٮﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ ا ٮﺮ هﻢ ]ٮـ[‪/‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬

‫)‪Folio Bonhams 2000 Verso (Q 5.48 – 5.54‬‬

‫{‬ ‫{‪]//‬ﻢ[} {‪ / /‬ا )ﻻ( ﻣﮟ )ا(‪}148‬‬ ‫}‬ ‫‪1‬‬

{ }[‫ ]ٮٮـ‬/ / [‫{ﻟ]ٯﺪ‬ } 9

Folio 4 B (Q 11.120–123 – 8.1–3)

Folio 5 A (Q 8.73–75 – 9.1–7)

{ } ‫ٯﯽ ا ﻻ ر )ص( ٯـﺴ]ﺪ[ ا ﮐٮٮﺮ ۝ و ا ]ﻟﺪ[ ٮـﮟ ا )ﻣٮﻮ( ا و‬ 1

‫ا ﻻ ﮐٮﺮ ا )ں( ا ﻟﻠﻪ ٮﺮ ﯼ ﻣ)ﮟ( ا )ﻟ(]ﻤ[)ﺴﺮ ﮐٮـﮟ( و ر } {‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫} { ﺳﻮ ﻟﻪ ا ﻻ ا ﻟﺪ ٮـﮟ ﻋﻬﺪ ٮﻢ )ﻋ(ٮﺪ ا ﻟﻤﺴﺤﺪ‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫]ٮـﻌ[ﻬﺪ ا ﻟ)ﻠ(ﻪ و ا ٮﻤٮﻬﻢ ٮﻤٮﺎ ٯـﻠ]ٮـ[ﻠﺎ ٯﺼﺪ و ا ﻋﮟ‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫}{ ﻣﺎ ﮐﺎ ں ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺮ ﮐٮﮟ ا ں ٮﻌﻤﺮ و ا ﻣﺴﺤﺪ ا ﻟﻠ]ﻪ[ ﺳ} {‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ﻋﻤﺮ ﻩ ا ﻟﻤ)ﺴ(ﺤﺪ ا ﻟﺤﺮ م )آ(ﻤﮟ ا ﻣﮟ ٮﺎ ﻟﻠﻪ و ا ﻟٮﻮ م ا‬ 7

{ } 170/ / ‫}{ ﻋٮﮑﻢ ﺳﺎ ﯼ )و( ]ﺻ[ٯٮ )ﻋ(ﻠ]ٮـ[ﮑﻢ ا ﻻ ر )ص( ]ٮﻤﺎ[ ر‬ 24

{} / / [‫ ]ﻣ[ﮟ ]ا ﻻ‬/ / [‫} { ]ا ﻣٮﻮ[ ا )ا( ]ں‬ 24

{ }‫]ٮـﻄﻠﻤﻬﻢ[ و ﻟ‬// ‫ ٮﺎ ﻟٮٮٮٮ ٯﻤﺎ ﮐﺎ ں ا )ﻟ(ﻠﻪ‬//[‫} {]ﺴ[ﻠ]ﻬ‬ 1

31A 12.17–12.20 43.63–43.69 less than ¼

18B 15.33–15.74 28.74–28.86